CAROLYN CHAN VS. JOHNSON CHAN ET AL
Demurrer to Amended Complaint
Motion type
Causes of action
Parties
Ruling
SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD26682749 - August 25, 2026 Hearing date: August 25, 2026 Case number: CUD26682749 Case title: CAROLYN CHAN VS. JOHNSON CHAN ET AL Case Number: | | CUD26682749 | Case Title: | | CAROLYN CHAN VS. JOHNSON CHAN ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-08-25 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | DEMURRER to Amended COMPLAINT | Rulings: | | On the Real Property/Housing Court Motion calendar for August 25, 2026, line 8.
Defendant's Demurrer to Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED with leave to amend for Plaintiff to allege that the majority vote of all acting co-Trustees was to terminate the Defendant's occupancy.
The Court notes that Defendant demurs to the second cause of action. There is no second cause of action in the complaint on file. It appears that Plaintiff combined two district grounds for recovery of possession into one cause of action, CCP 1161(1) and 1161(3), which renders the complaint uncertain and caused a demurrer to a cause of action that is not separately labeled. =(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
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?”