DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC22601288·sf·Civil·Real Property/Housing
Hearing 9 months agoCONTINUED

MIHAL EMBERTON VS. SAN FRANCISCO CITY GOVERMENT

Verified Petition For Writ Of Supersedeas And Motion To Stay City Proceedings

Hearing date
Nov 18, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Dec 9, 2025

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffMIHAL EMBERTON
DefendantSAN FRANCISCO CITY GOVERMENT

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC22601288 - November 18, 2025 Hearing date: November 18, 2025 Case number: CGC22601288 Case title: MIHAL EMBERTON VS. SAN FRANCISCO CITY GOVERMENT Case Number: | | CGC22601288 | Case Title: | | MIHAL EMBERTON VS. SAN FRANCISCO CITY GOVERMENT | Court Date: | | 2025-11-18 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Verified Petition For Writ Of Supersedeas And Motion To Stay City Proceedings | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for November 18, 2025.

Line 1.1. PLAINTIFF MIHAL EMBERTON Verified Petition For Writ Of Supersedeas And Motion To Stay City Proceedings; is continued to December 9, 2025, on the Court's own motion. =(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

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