DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD25678493·sf·Civil·Real Property / Housing
Hearing about 1 year agoOFF CALENDAR

LAN LE VS. MARIE K. CLAIRE ET AL

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS OR STAY OR DISMISS

Hearing date
Jul 10, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Quash rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffLAN LE
DefendantMARIE K. CLAIRE

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD25678493 - July 10, 2025 Hearing date: July 10, 2025 Case number: CUD25678493 Case title: LAN LE VS. MARIE K. CLAIRE ET AL Case Number: | | CUD25678493 | Case Title: | | LAN LE VS. MARIE K. CLAIRE ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-07-10 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS OR STAY OR DISMISS | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion calendar for July 10, 2025, line 8.

Defendant's Motion to Quash Service of Summons is OFF CALENDAR. Proof of service indicates the moving papers were served electronically, but there is no evidence or indication in record that the pro per plaintiff expressly consented to electronic service per CCP 1010.6, and plaintiff contends no such consent has been given. =(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