DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD25679296·sf·Civil·Real Property/Housing
Hearing 12 months agoHEARING REQUIRED. Defendant Jeremy Boivin and process server Stacey Solomon are ordered to appear at the hearing in person.

TI LOT 10, LLC VS. JEREMY BOIVIN ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Quash Service, Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof

Hearing date
Aug 28, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Quash rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffTI LOT 10, LLC
DefendantJEREMY BOIVIN

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD25679296 - August 28, 2025 Hearing date: August 28, 2025 Case number: CUD25679296 Case title: TI LOT 10, LLC VS. JEREMY BOIVIN ET AL Case Number: | | CUD25679296 | Case Title: | | TI LOT 10, LLC VS. JEREMY BOIVIN ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-08-28 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion To Quash Service, Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Motion calendar for August 28, 2025, line 13.

Defendant's Motion to Quash Service. HEARING REQUIRED. Defendant Jeremy Boivin and process server Stacey Solomon are ordered to appear at the hearing in person. =(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 tent ative 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