DecisionDepot
California Legal Research
All cases
CGC25623811·sf·Civil·Real Property/Housing
SUSTAINED in part and OVERRULED in part.

JULIANA HILL VS. 735 TAYLOR I1, A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ET AL

DEFENDANTS DEMURRER

Hearing date
May 6, 2026
Department
501
Judge
Prevailing
Mixed

Motion type

Demurrer

Causes of action

Breach of ContractNegligent infliction of emotional distressBreach of warranty of quiet enjoymentUCL violationBreach of warranty of habitability - tort

Parties

PlaintiffJULIANA HILL
Defendant735 TAYLOR I1, A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC25623811 - May 6, 2026 Hearing date: May 6, 2026 Case number: CGC25623811 Case title: JULIANA HILL VS. 735 TAYLOR I1, A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ET AL Case Number: | | CGC25623811 | Case Title: | | JULIANA HILL VS. 735 TAYLOR I1, A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-05-06 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | DEFENDANTS DEMURRER | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for May 6, 2026. Line 3.2.

DEFENDANTS DEMURRER is SUSTAINED in part and OVERRULED in part.

Demurrer is sustained without leave to amend as to the 5th cause of action. Plaintiff agreed to withdraw this cause of action.

Demurrer is sustained with leave to amend (1) the cause of action for breach of contract for plaintiff to allege a cause of action for breach of warranty of habitability-contract as it appears to be the intended cause of action based on the opposition. Each element of this cause of action shall be factually supported as to each of the moving defendants;

Demurrer is overruled as to (1) the cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress. According to the notice of motion the demurrer to this cause of action is based solely on uncertainty. This claim is not uncertain; (2) as to the cause of action for breach of warranty of quiet enjoyment. Defendant does not point out to a statute upon which this cause of action is purportedly based, requiring specificity in allegation; (3) the cause of action for UCL violation. Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel. Co. (1999) 20 Cal4th 163 does not stand for the proposition that " [plaintiff] must allege independent unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent practice." UCL borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable; (4) breach of warranty of habitability - tort. This cause of action is sufficiently stated and is not uncertain. =(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…

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