DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV137455·alameda·Civil·Civil
Hearing todayCONTINUED

NEMAN BROTHERS & ASSOC., INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, vs QUAN, et al.

Motion to Quash Proof of Service

Hearing date
Sep 3, 2026
Department
20
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Sep 24, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Quash rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffNeman Brothers & Assoc., Inc.
DefendantVictor Quan

Ruling

25CV137455: NEMAN BROTHERS & ASSOC., INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, vs QUAN, et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Proof of Service; filed by VICTOR QUAN (Defendant) CRS# 161266611769 in Department 20

Tentative Ruling - 08/31/2026 Thomas Eagle Weathers

The Hearing on Motion to Quash Proof of Service; filed by VICTOR QUAN (Defendant) CRS# 161266611769 scheduled for 09/03/2026 is continued to 09/24/2026 at 03:00 PM in Department 20 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse.

The hearing on Defendant Victor Quan’s Motion to Quash is CONTINUED to September 24, 2026.

The proof of service attached to the last page of the Notice of Motion generally states that the moving papers were served on “counsel of record for all parties who have appeared to date through One Legal addressed to all parties appearing on the One Legal electronic service list.” There are no names of counsel, addresses, or email addresses identified on the proof of service. There is no opposition on file.

In an abundance of caution, the Court continues the hearing to allow for opposition and reply. Defendant Victor Quan shall ensure that the moving papers are served on all parties in this action no later than September 4, 2026. Any opposition shall be filed and served by September 11, 2026. Any reply shall be filed and served by September 17, 2025.

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