DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC22597463·sf·Civil·Civil
Hearing 10 months agoCONTINUED

LATAYA ROBINSON VS. CHINATOWN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CENTER ET AL

DEMURRER to COMPLAINT

Hearing date
Oct 21, 2025
Department
301
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Nov 13, 2025

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffLATAYA ROBINSON
DefendantCHINATOWN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC.
DefendantHAMLIN HOTEL 2019, LP

Ruling

Matter on the Law & Motion/Discovery Calendar for Tuesday, October 21, 2025, line 6 1 - DEFENDANTS CHINATOWN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC., HAMLIN HOTEL 2019, LP'S DEMURRER to COMPLAINT Continued for hearing to November 13, 2025.

Plaintiff Lataya Robinson obtained leave of the court to file a first amended complaint that was attached as Exhibit A to the Vannucci Declaration filed on July 11, 2025 ("Original FAC"). When Robinson filed it, the clerk rejected it nearly a month later because party names were listed as "et al." (Vannucci Decl., 10/8/25, Ex. C.) Robinson submitted a new version of a pleading styled as a first amended complaint ("Filed FAC") on October 3, 2025. (Id., para. 6.) The court clerk accepted it for filing and backdated it to September 29, 2025. (Id.)

The court's job is to construe the pleadings to do substantial justice among the parties. (See Code Civ. Proc., section 452.) That task is complicated here by the delay in processing the filing and by the coming trial, set for November 17, 2025. The court has carefully compared the Original FAC and the Filed FAC and it appears that Robinson's changes merely responded to the clerk's rejection notice, and the demurrers and motions to strike filed by the parties and directed at the Original FAC are equally applicable to the Filed FAC.

The court declines to strike the Filed FAC. It deems the demurrers and motions to strike filed on September 23, 2025, and September 29, 2025, as directed at the Filed FAC. It continues the demurrers and motions to strike to November 13, 2025, at 9 a.m. in Department 301. Robinson may file an opposition no later than nine court days in advance of the continued hearing date. Defendants may reply no later than five court days in advance of the continued hearing date.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. = (301/CVA) | |

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