DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC23604432·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing 12 months agoDENIED

PAUL MARGARITAS ET AL VS. LESTER WONG ET AL

Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication

Hearing date
Aug 29, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
Opposing Party

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Summary Judgment rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffPAUL MARGARITAS
DefendantLESTER WONG

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC23604432 - August 29, 2025 Hearing date: August 29, 2025 Case number: CGC23604432 Case title: PAUL MARGARITAS ET AL VS. LESTER WONG ET AL Case Number: | | CGC23604432 | Case Title: | | PAUL MARGARITAS ET AL VS. LESTER WONG ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-08-29 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT / Notice Of Motion And Motion For Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Motion calendar for August 29, 2025, line 2.

Cross Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication is DENIED. The motion is moot as to Plaintiff's Supplemental Complaint because there is a dismissal on file. Summary judgment is DENIED as to the First Amended Complaint.

There are many triable issues of fact, including PG&E's compliance with applicable regulations and whether the car accident was reasonably foreseeable or a substantial factor in causing harm. Additionally, there are triable issues of fact regarding the extent to which the Fire Department and Building Department's failure to express concerns is indicative of PG&E' compliance with regulations. Finally, PG&E's only evidence that the gas meter was in a "readily accessible location," "adequately protected," and "adequately ventilated" is a relatively conclusory declaration of one expert. This declaration does not make summary judgment appropriate, especially given the phrasing of these regulations call for fact-intensive inquiries. =(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 tent ative 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