DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD25678712·sf·Civil·Real Property/Housing
Hearing 12 days agoCONTINUED

GARY ESPINOZA VS. SHAI-LYNG CHENG ET AL

Defendant Shai-Lyng Cheng'S Application For Relief From Forfeiture

Hearing date
Aug 12, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Aug 18, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffGARY ESPINOZA
DefendantSHAI-LYNG CHENG

Ruling

Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for August 12, 2026. Line 6. DEFENDANT SHAI-LYNG CHENG, AN INDIVIDUAL Defendant Shai-Lyng Cheng'S Application For Relief From Forfeiture; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities Iso Application For Relief From Forfeiture is continued to August 18, 2026 for the moving party to comply with LRSF 2.7B and provide courtesy copies of the moving and reply papers no later than August 12, 2026 with a cover letter reflecting the new hearing date. (Opposition received.) =(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 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