DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC24619450·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing 13 days agoGRANTED

YALING CHEN VS. RICHARD HUM ET AL

Defendants Ann Hum, Edmund Hum, And Belinda Hum Notice Of Motion And Motion For Determination Of Good Faith Settlement

Hearing date
Aug 11, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffYALING CHEN
DefendantRICHARD HUM
DefendantANN HUM
DefendantEDMUND HUM
DefendantBELINDA HUM

Attorneys

Twiggy Alvarezfor Defendant

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC24619450 - August 11, 2026 Hearing date: August 11, 2026 Case number: CGC24619450 Case title: YALING CHEN VS. RICHARD HUM ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24619450 | Case Title: | | YALING CHEN VS. RICHARD HUM ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-08-11 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Defendants Ann Hum, Edmund Hum, And Belinda Hum Notice Of Motion And Motion For Determination Of Good Faith Settlement; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities; Declaration Of Twiggy Alvarez | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for August 11, 2026. Line 4.

Defendants' Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED. No 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 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