JDS MONTGOMERY LLC ET AL VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC25621262 - November 20, 2025 Hearing date: November 20, 2025 Case number: CGC25621262 Case title: JDS MONTGOMERY LLC ET AL VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL Case Number: | | CGC25621262 | Case Title: | | JDS MONTGOMERY LLC ET AL VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-11-20 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Amended Notice Of Motion For An Order Requiring Plaintiffs To Post A Security Undertaking Pursuant To California Code Of Civil Procedure 1030 C.C.P. 1030 | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for November 20, 2025. Line 4.2.

DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Motion For An Order Requiring Plaintiffs To Post A Security Undertaking Pursuant To California Code Of Civil Procedure 1030 C.C.P. 1030; is GRANTED. Moving party established that Plaintiffs are foreign corporations and that there is a reasonable possibility that the moving defendant will obtain judgment. The amount of undertaking is set at $9,900, which represents anticipated costs of deposition, subpoenas and copying.

Request to include attorney's fees potentially recoverable under CCP 1038 in the undertaking amount is denied. Moving party failed to establish entitlement to such fees under CCP 1038 at this time. Even assuming that the City may prevail on its yet unfiled Motion for Summary Judgement (which apparently will not be filed until depositions are conducted and subpoenas are issued and responded to per the description of anticipated costs), there is insufficient evidence before the Court to make a determination whether Plaintiffs "brought the proceeding with reasonable cause and in the good faith belief that there was a justifiable controversy under the facts and law which warranted the filing of the complaint."

The Court notes that the moving party appears to suggest that the standard for such finding is "reasonable possibility" (Reply 13:25), a standard not mentioned anywhere in CCP 1038 or in any cases cited by the moving party in the moving papers re: CCP 1038. This standard appears to be "borrowed" form CCP 1030 without any explanation or any authorities tying the two code sections together. =(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. | |