DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD24675863·sf·Civil·Real Property/Housing
Hearing about 1 year agoCONTINUED

NAM SHI LEE VS. EUGENE JUN KWOCK TOM ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion For Reconsideration Of Hon Charles F. Haines' Order Denying Motion To Vacate Judgment And Request For Stay Of Execution

Hearing date
Jun 4, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Jun 13, 2025

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Reconsideration rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffNAM SHI LEE
DefendantEUGENE JUN KWOCK TOM

Ruling

Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for June 4, 2025 line 3. DEFENDANT EUGENE TOM NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF HON CHARLES F. HAINES' ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND REQUEST FOR STAY OF EXECUTION is CONTINUED to June 13, 2025 at 9:30 a.m., on the Court's own motion. =(501/HEK) 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