DEMURRER to COMPLAINT
Matter on Calendar for Monday, August 11, 2025, Line 10, DEFENDANT DOPPIO ZERO SF, LP'S DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT.
The unopposed demurrer of defendant Doppio Zero SF, LP is overruled. Plaintiff Alexander Xue alleges that he ate a meal at Doppio Zero and was charged an undisclosed fee on his final bill.
In demurrer to the first and second causes of action for violations of the Unfair Competition Law, Doppio Zero's argument depends on its claim that the fee was disclosed. Xue pleads that the fee was not disclosed, a fact the court must accept as true for purposes of this pleadings motion.
The third cause of action pleads a claim under the Consumers Legal Remedy Act. Doppio Zero contends that Xue cannot receive damages, much less damages or disgorgement for fees paid by other customers, because he does not plead that he sent a cure notice to Doppio Zero before filing suit. But Xue seeks injunctive relief as well as damages under this cause of action. Because a demurrer lies only to an entire cause of action and not elements of relief, this argument is an insufficient basis to sustain the demurrer.
Doppio Zero's demurrer was previously set for hearing on July 18, 2025. The court continued it because Xue provided a courtesy copy of a purported opposition brief to the court but neither filed it nor served it on Doppio Zero. The court has not read or relied on the purported opposition, and cautions Xue that the court cannot consider opposition papers that are not filed. Moreover, all materials provided to the court must be served on the opposing party. The court orders Xue not to deliver courtesy copies to the court of material he has not served.
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.
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.
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?”
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. =(302/CVA) | |