DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC24620531·sf·Civil·Real Property Partition
Hearing 11 months agoGRANTED

CLAYTON L YEE ET AL VS. GILBERT TANG ET AL

Notice And Motion For Entry Of Interlocutory Judgment For Partition Of Real Property

Hearing date
Sep 19, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffCLAYTON YEE
PlaintiffTANG YEE FAMILY TRUST
PlaintiffGRACE TANG
DefendantGILBERT TANG

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC24620531 - September 19, 2025 Hearing date: September 19, 2025 Case number: CGC24620531 Case title: CLAYTON L YEE ET AL VS. GILBERT TANG ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24620531 | Case Title: | | CLAYTON L YEE ET AL VS. GILBERT TANG ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-09-19 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice And Motion For Entry Of Interlocutory Judgment For Partition Of Real Property | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for Sept 19, 2025. Line 6.1.

PLAINTIFF CLAYTON YEE AS CO- TRUSTESS OF THE TANG YEE FAMILY TRUST, U/A DATE FEBRUARY 14.2023, GRACE TANG Notice And Motion For Entry Of Interlocutory Judgment For Partition Of Real Property is GRANTED. Non-opposition filed. =(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