DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC25626224·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing 6 months agoCONTINUED

FREDRIC VINNA VS. YAN HONG-HEIM ET AL

DEMURRER to COMPLAINT

Hearing date
Feb 13, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Mar 10, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffFREDRIC VINNA
DefendantYAN HONG-HEIM
DefendantMODERN ART CONSTRUCTION

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC25626224 - February 13, 2026 Hearing date: February 13, 2026 Case number: CGC25626224 Case title: FREDRIC VINNA VS. YAN HONG-HEIM ET AL Case Number: | | CGC25626224 | Case Title: | | FREDRIC VINNA VS. YAN HONG-HEIM ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-02-13 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | DEMURRER to COMPLAINT | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for February 13, 2026 line 6. DEFENDANT MODERN ART CONSTRUCTION'S DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT is continued to March 10, 2026 to be heard with other pending motion. =(501/CFH) Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom [Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252].

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…
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