HONG ZHENG ET AL VS. GLENN FAMA ET AL

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC24612227 - July 16, 2026 Hearing date: July 16, 2026 Case number: CGC24612227 Case title: HONG ZHENG ET AL VS. GLENN FAMA ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24612227 | Case Title: | | HONG ZHENG ET AL VS. GLENN FAMA ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-07-16 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION. | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 16, 2026. Line 1. PLAINTIFF HONG ZHENG, AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE MACRO ROJO TRUST, HONG XIAO MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION. is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court has considered the parties' evidentiary objections.

1.Summary Adjudication is DENIED as to Plaintiffs' Quiet Title Claim. There are triable issues of fact regarding what area Defendants are asserting a claim to, when Plaintiff's privet was planted in the Disputed Area, and whether Defendant Fama admits he "does not know whether he has an implied easement over the Disputed Area." First, Plaintiffs assert that "Fama asserts an interest only in the real property south of the job in the brick wall (the "Disputed Area") and Defendants assert "an interest in the real property south of the wall, including the area of the jog."

The evidence presented support both statements. It is unclear if the parties are stating Defendant Fama claims asserts an interest in the same property, worded differently, or different areas. Second, there is a triable issue of fact as to when Plaintiff Zheng planted a privet in the Disputed Area. The evidence presented pits Plaintiffs' word against Defendants'. Third, Plaintiffs State that Defendant admits he does not know if he has an implied easement over the Disputed Area. However, the evidence cited by both parties indicates Defendant Fama only states he was unsure about the implied easement in the context of believing the Court needed to conduct a proper analysis, not whether Defendant Fama believes Defendants have an implied easement over the Disputed Area.

2.Summary Adjudication is GRANTED as to Defendants' 22nd Affirmative Defense for Adverse Possession. Defendants have failed to carry their burden of showing a prima facie case for adverse possession because Defendants have not presented evidence showing that they have paid property taxes on the Disputed Area, a required element of a successful claim of adverse possession. Without evidence showing taxes have been paid by Defendants on the Disputed Area, Defendants cannot show all the elements required for an adverse possession defense.

3.Summary Adjudication is DENIED as to Defendants' 23rd Affirmative Defense for Easement. There are triable issues of fact regarding what property Defendants are asserting an interest in and when Plaintiffs planted the privet. Particularly, when the privet was planted affects Defendant's ability to show a prima facie case for prescriptive easement, as whether the privet was planted in 2014 or 2022 affects whether Defendants' use of the Disputed Area was continuous and uninterrupted. The evidence presented by the parties as to when the privet was planted comes down to Plaintiffs' word against Defendants', which results in a triable issue of fact. [[[continued]]] | |