DecisionDepot
California Legal Research
All cases
CUD25679338·sf·Civil·Real Property
DENIED

BAY 333 OWNER, LP VS. MARTHE SCHREIBER ET AL

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Hearing date
Jan 7, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Motion for Summary Judgment

Parties

PlaintiffBAY 333 OWNER, LP
DefendantMARTHE SCHREIBER

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD25679338 - January 7, 2026 Hearing date: January 7, 2026 Case number: CUD25679338 Case title: BAY 333 OWNER, LP VS. MARTHE SCHREIBER ET AL Case Number: | | CUD25679338 | Case Title: | | BAY 333 OWNER, LP VS. MARTHE SCHREIBER ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-01-07 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for January 7, 2026. Line 20.

DEFENDANT MARTHE SCHREIBER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT is DENIED. Defendant has failed to show that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Defendant's arguments and evidence are essentially identical to those previously made on demurrer, which was overruled on September 30, 2025.

This matter will be heard in department 505 by the Honorable Michelle Tong at 1:30 p.m. per the order of the presiding judge. (MT)

Parties may appear in-person, or via Zoom (Video - Meeting ID: 160 4132 4666; Passcode: 872834). 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…

Extracted by Gemini Flash 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?”

Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Source

Share