DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC21594363·sf·Civil·Real Property / Housing
Hearing 6 months agoSUSTAINED with leave to amend

RASA VITILIA ET AL VS. CARLYCE INGRAM ET AL

DEMURRER to Amended COMPLAINT

Hearing date
Feb 6, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffRASA VITILIA
DefendantCARLYCE INGRAM
DefendantKAREN COPPOCK

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC21594363 - February 6, 2026 Hearing date: February 6, 2026 Case number: CGC21594363 Case title: RASA VITILIA ET AL VS. CARLYCE INGRAM ET AL Case Number: | | CGC21594363 | Case Title: | | RASA VITILIA ET AL VS. CARLYCE INGRAM ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-02-06 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | DEMURRER to Amended COMPLAINT | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for February 6, 2026. Line 3.

DEFENDANT KAREN COPPOCK DEMURRER to Amended COMPLAINT is SUSTAINED with leave to amend for Plaintiff to allege in good facts (not conclusions) in support of each element of the causes of action for negligence and violation of the Rent Ordinance. Inter alia, Plaintiffs must allege facts in support of the conclusion that Plaintiffs are tenants (See Ex. A to FAC; License Agreement) and facts establishing Karen Coppock's duty to Plaintiffs. =(501/REQ)

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