DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD25680447·sf·Civil·Unlawful Detainer
Hearing 9 months agoOVERRULED, 5 days to answer.

ERIK GAENSLER VS. STACEY SMITH ET AL

DEMURRER to COMPLAINT

Hearing date
Nov 18, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffERIK GAENSLER
DefendantSTACEY SMITH
DefendantMICHAEL MAHER

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD25680447 - November 18, 2025 Hearing date: November 18, 2025 Case number: CUD25680447 Case title: ERIK GAENSLER VS. STACEY SMITH ET AL Case Number: | | CUD25680447 | Case Title: | | ERIK GAENSLER VS. STACEY SMITH ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-11-18 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | DEMURRER to COMPLAINT | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for November 18, 2025. Line 6.2.

DEFENDANT STACEY SMITH AN INDIIVIDUAL, MICHAEL MAHER DEMURRER to COMPLAINT; is OVERRULED, 5 days to answer. The Complaint states a cause of action for unlawful detainer. The Complaint does not assert a cause of action for forcible entry or forcible detainer. =(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