DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC24618494·sf·Civil·Employment / PAGA
Hearing 10 months agoGRANTED

HARRY HA VS. GOLDEN GATE BELL, LLC ET AL

Motion To Dismiss Defendants Golden Gate Bell Restaurant Holdings, Llc; Dolan Foster Enterprises, Llc; Diversified Restaurant Group, Llc; And Diversified Restaurant Group Rsc, Llc, Without Prejudice

Hearing date
Oct 9, 2025
Department
302
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffHARRY HA
DefendantGOLDEN GATE BELL RESTAURANT HOLDINGS, LLC
DefendantDOLAN FOSTER ENTERPRISES, LLC
DefendantDIVERSIFIED RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC
DefendantDIVERSIFIED RESTAURANT GROUP RSC, LLC

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 302 - CGC24618494 - October 9, 2025 Hearing date: October 9, 2025 Case number: CGC24618494 Case title: HARRY HA VS. GOLDEN GATE BELL, LLC ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24618494 | Case Title: | | HARRY HA VS. GOLDEN GATE BELL, LLC ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-10-09 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Motion To Dismiss Defendants Golden Gate Bell Restaurant Holdings, Llc; Dolan Foster Enterprises, Llc; Diversified Restaurant Group, Llc; And Diversified Restaurant Group Rsc, Llc, Without Prejudice | Rulings: | | On the Law and Motion / Discovery calendar for October 9, 2025, line 6, PLAINTIFF HARRY HA IN HIS REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY ON BEHALF TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS A PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND FELLOW CURRENT AND FORMER AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES Motion To Dismiss Defendants Golden Gate Bell Restaurant Holdings, Llc; Dolan Foster Enterprises, Llc; Diversified Restaurant Group, Llc; And Diversified Restaurant Group Rsc, Llc, Without Prejudice

Plaintiff Harry Ha's unopposed Motion To Dismiss Defendants Golden Gate Bell Restaurant Holdings, LLC; Dolan Foster Enterprises, LLC; Diversified Restaurant Group, LLC; and Diversified Restaurant Group RSC, LLC, Without Prejudice is GRANTED.

Good cause appearing, the court orders Defendants Golden Gate Bell Restaurant Holdings, LLC; Dolan Foster Enterprises, LLC; Diversified Restaurant Group, LLC; and Diversified Restaurant Group RSC, LLC are dismissed without prejudice from this action.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.)

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 contestdept302tr@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 contestdept302tr@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 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. =(302/JMQ) | |

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