DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC25628811·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing 10 months agoSUSTAINED with leave to amend

KAREN HAO ET AL VS. ZHUO DONG LIN ET AL

DEMURRER to COMPLAINT

Hearing date
Nov 5, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffKAREN HAO
DefendantZHUO DONG LIN
DefendantSAM WU

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC25628811 - November 5, 2025 Hearing date: November 5, 2025 Case number: CGC25628811 Case title: KAREN HAO ET AL VS. ZHUO DONG LIN ET AL Case Number: | | CGC25628811 | Case Title: | | KAREN HAO ET AL VS. ZHUO DONG LIN ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-11-05 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | DEMURRER to COMPLAINT | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for November 5, 2025 line 7.

DEFENDANT SAM WU'S DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT is SUSTAINED with leave to amend for Plaintiffs to address in good faith all arguments raised by the demurrer. Plaintiffs shall allege facts in support of each element of each cause of action as to Defendant Wu and address litigation privilege, if Plaintiff may plead around it in good faith. Plaintiffs shall have 30 days to file an amended complaint. =(501/CFH)

Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom [Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252].

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 so 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