DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC18571386·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing 11 months agoTransferred to Department 302

CHARLES LI VS. MEI LING FANG ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Set Aside Dismissal Without Prejudice Filed On 2025-07-02

Hearing date
Sep 19, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Oct 1, 2025

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffCharles Li
DefendantMei Ling Fang
DefendantDemas Yan aka Dennis Yan

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC18571386 - September 19, 2025 Hearing date: September 19, 2025 Case number: CGC18571386 Case title: CHARLES LI VS. MEI LING FANG ET AL Case Number: | | CGC18571386 | Case Title: | | CHARLES LI VS. MEI LING FANG ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-09-19 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion To Set Aside Dismissal Without Prejudice Filed On 2025-07-02 | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for Sept 19, 2025.

Line 1. DEFENDANT DEMAS YAN AKA DENNIS YAN, AN INDIVIDUAL Notice Of Motion And Motion To Set Aside Dismissal Without Prejudice Filed On 2025-07-02 is transferred to Department 302 to be heard on October 1, 2025 at 9:00 a.m., per the Order of the Presiding Judge. =(501/CFH)

Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849).

Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required.

Notice of contesting a tentative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not so notified, and the opposing party does not appear. | |

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share