DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD25679213·sf·Civil·Real Property / Housing
Hearing 7 months agoOFF CALENDAR. First Amended Complaint on file.

ZAHID SHAIKH VS. BRADFORD FOO ET AL

DEMURRER to COMPLAINT

Hearing date
Feb 3, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffZAHID SHAIKH
DefendantBRADFORD FOO

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD25679213 - February 3, 2026 Hearing date: February 3, 2026 Case number: CUD25679213 Case title: ZAHID SHAIKH VS. BRADFORD FOO ET AL Case Number: | | CUD25679213 | Case Title: | | ZAHID SHAIKH VS. BRADFORD FOO ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-02-03 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | DEMURRER to COMPLAINT | Rulings: | | On the Real Property / Housing Court Law and Motion calendar for February 3, 2026, line 6. Defendant's Demurrer to Complaint is OFF CALENDAR.

First Amended Complaint on file. =(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