MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC24613867 - November 26, 2025 Hearing date: November 26, 2025 Case number: CGC24613867 Case title: JULIO CHICAS VS. DANNY CHOW ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24613867 | Case Title: | | JULIO CHICAS VS. DANNY CHOW ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-11-26 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS | Rulings: | | On the Law and Motion/Discovery calendar for November 26, 2025, line 4. DEFENDANTS DANNY CHOW, EXCELSIOR MOTORS, INC.'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS. Motion for judgment on the pleadings/Granted with 20 days leave to amend.
1. "The standard for granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that applicable to a general demurrer, that is, under the state of the pleadings, together with matters that may be judicially noticed, it appears that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 2. [J]udgment on the pleadings must be denied where there are material factual issues that require evidentiary resolution." (SP Investment Fund I LLC v. Cattell (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 898, 905.)
3. Here, defendants have relied on Chow's declaration which is speculative in nature.
4. Regardless,, plaintiff is given leave to amend to allege that defendants had actual knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensity to support the negligence/premises liability claim. (Chee v. Amanda Goldt Property Management (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1360, 1369 ["it is well established that a landlord does not owe a duty of care to protect a third party from his or her tenant's dog unless the landlord has actual knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities, and the ability to control or prevent the harm."].)
5. Plaintiff may also amend to allege a strict liability claim under CACI 462.
6. However, Plaintiff alleges ultimate facts showing defendants controlled the dog and had actual or constructive knowledge (knew or should have known) of its dangerous propensity.
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.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
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.
Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.
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/VJ-BZ) | |