DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC20586621·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing 8 months agoDENIED. Triable issues of fact exist.

JOANNA L. PFEISTER VS. GRAMERCY TOWERS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION ET AL

MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Hearing date
Dec 22, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Summary Adjudication rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffJOANNA L. PFEISTER
DefendantGRAMERCY TOWERS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
DefendantWETZEL
DefendantGORDON
DefendantROGERS
DefendantD'ERRICO
DefendantTOBIN

Attorneys

Scott J. Hrozafor Defendant

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC20586621 - December 22, 2025 Hearing date: December 22, 2025 Case number: CGC20586621 Case title: JOANNA L. PFEISTER VS. GRAMERCY TOWERS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION ET AL Case Number: | | CGC20586621 | Case Title: | | JOANNA L. PFEISTER VS. GRAMERCY TOWERS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-12-22 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities; Declaration Of Scott J. Hroza | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for December 22, 2025 line 3.

DEFENDANTS WETZEL, GORDON, ROGERS, D'ERRICO, AND TOBIN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION is DENIED. Triable issues of fact exist. See Defendant's response to Plaintiff's Additional Facts in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Adjudication. =(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