DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC25623290·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing 6 months agoCONTINUED

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL VS. JACKSON & TAYLOR VENTURES, LLC; ET AL

DEMURRER to Amended CROSS COMPLAINT

Hearing date
Feb 6, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Mar 6, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffCITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
DefendantJACKSON & TAYLOR VENTURES, LLC
Cross-Defendant660 PERALTA LLC
Cross-DefendantALEX HAN

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC25623290 - February 6, 2026 Hearing date: February 6, 2026 Case number: CGC25623290 Case title: CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL VS. JACKSON & TAYLOR VENTURES, LLC; ET AL Case Number: | | CGC25623290 | Case Title: | | CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL VS. JACKSON & TAYLOR VENTURES, LLC; ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-02-06 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | DEMURRER to Amended CROSS COMPLAINT | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for February 6, 2026. Line 4.

CROSS DEFENDANT 660 PERALTA LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ALEX HAN DEMURRER to Amended CROSS COMPLAINT is continued to March 6, 2026 on the Court's own motion. =(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