DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC22601288·sf·Civil·Real Property/Housing
Hearing 4 months agoDENIED

MIHAL EMBERTON VS. SAN FRANCISCO CITY GOVERMENT

Motion To Vacate Order (Ccp Section 663) Sustaining Demurrer To Eighth Amended Complaint

Hearing date
Apr 23, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffMIHAL EMBERTON
DefendantSAN FRANCISCO CITY GOVERMENT

Ruling

Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for April 23, 2026. Line 2. PLAINTIFF MIHAL EMBERTON Motion To Vacate Order (Ccp Section 663) Sustaining Demurrer To Eighth Amended Complaint is DENIED. As Plaintiff points out, there was no trial in this action. CCP 663 applies to judgments or decrees after trial. Although the City's opposition is based solely on the procedural impropriety of Plaintiff's motion under CCP 663, Plaintiff's reply contains no discussion whatsoever of how she can obtain relief under CCP 663. =(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 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