| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Wednesday, August 27, 2025, Line 5 [Part 2 of 2 of the tentative ruling]. DEFENDANTS CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, AND LONDON BREED'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS.
The fifth cause of action alleges premises liability in July of 2024. The contention appears to be that Powell tried to use the Department of Police Accountability to seek relief for a complaint about defendant Ellen Dollese. Powell does not state facts about what Dollese did; he says only that she engaged in egregious trespassing. Powell complains that supervisor Christian Chrisnall asserted that Doe #1's behavior was appropriate and this caused Powell to suffer IIED. The court grants the motion as to this cause of action because it fails to allege facts showing sufficiently outrageous behavior to state a claim for IIED, nor does it state a claim for premises liability.
The sixth cause of action is styled as an intentional tort and complains that Mayor Breed did not see Powell although he had announced on X or Twitter that he was coming to see her. These facts do not state a claim for relief.
The seventh cause of action is styled as a premises liability claim and states that Powell tried to present grievances to the Department of Public Health and was refused the opportunity to talk to a supervisor. These facts do not state a claim for relief.
The motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted as to causes of action one, two, four, five, six, and seven. Powell has previously been given an opportunity to amend but has not cured the deficiencies in his pleading. His briefing offers no additional facts he could plead. The court concludes that amendment would be futile and does not grant leave to amend.
As to the third cause of action, the cause of action is stricken. Nothing in this order prevents Powell from filing a new action asserting the third cause of action.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) 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 contestdept301tr@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.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
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 contestdept301tr@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 or Discovery 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. [End of part 2 of 2 of the tentative ruling.] =(301/CVA) | |