DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD26682084·sf·Civil·Real Property/Housing
Hearing about 2 months agoOFF CALENDAR

MARTIN LUTHER KING-MARCUS GARVEY SQUARE APARTMENTS VS. DELORES BROWN

DEMURRER to Amended ANSWER to COMPLAINT

Hearing date
Jul 7, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffMARTIN LUTHER KING-MARCUS GARVEY SQUARE APARTMENTS INC
DefendantDELORES BROWN

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD26682084 - July 7, 2026 Hearing date: July 7, 2026 Case number: CUD26682084 Case title: MARTIN LUTHER KING-MARCUS GARVEY SQUARE APARTMENTS VS. DELORES BROWN Case Number: | | CUD26682084 | Case Title: | | MARTIN LUTHER KING-MARCUS GARVEY SQUARE APARTMENTS VS. DELORES BROWN | Court Date: | | 2026-07-07 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | DEMURRER to Amended ANSWER to COMPLAINT | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 7, 2026. Line 14.

PLAINTIFF MARTIN LUTHER KING-MARCUS GARVEY SQUARE APARTMENTS INC, DEMURRER to Amended ANSWER to COMPLAINT is OFF CALENDAR. Proof of electronic service of the moving papers does not comply with CCP 1013b(b). =(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