DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD25679061·sf·Civil·Real Property / Housing
Hearing about 1 year agoGRANTED, as to any purported service prior to July 15, 2025 only.

Tenderloin Housing Clinic v. Chad Jackson et al

Motion to Quash Service of Summons or Stay or Dismiss

Hearing date
Jul 24, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Quash rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffTenderloin Housing Clinic
DefendantChad Jackson

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD25679061 - July 24, 2025 Hearing date: July 24, 2025 Case number: CUD25679061 Case title: TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC VS. CHAD JACKSON ET AL Case Number: | | CUD25679061 | Case Title: | | TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC VS. CHAD JACKSON ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-07-24 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 24, 2025, line 10.

Defendant's Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint is GRANTED, as to any purported service prior to July 15, 2025 only. This order does not extend to any purported service completed on or after July 15, 2025, including that reflected in the Proof of Service of Summons filed on July 21, 2025. =(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