DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC23608302·sf·Civil·Real Property / Housing
Hearing 12 months agoOVERRULED

EMI J. YOSHIDA ET AL VS. 479 LOS PALMOS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED ET AL

Amended DEMURRER to Amended COMPLAINT

Hearing date
Aug 29, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffEMI J. YOSHIDA
Defendant479 LOS PALMOS, LLC
DefendantChavez
DefendantPeninsula Gold Inc.

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC23608302 - August 29, 2025 Hearing date: August 29, 2025 Case number: CGC23608302 Case title: EMI J. YOSHIDA ET AL VS. 479 LOS PALMOS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED ET AL Case Number: | | CGC23608302 | Case Title: | | EMI J. YOSHIDA ET AL VS. 479 LOS PALMOS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-08-29 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Amended DEMURRER to Amended COMPLAINT | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Motion calendar for August 29, 2025, line 3.

Defendants Chavez and Peninsula Gold Inc.'s Demurrer to Amended Complaint is OVERRULED. The First Amended Complaint alleges Defendants were more than just the listing agent and broker for the property and sufficiently alleges a cause of action for misrepresentation. (FAC paras. 12, 17, 18, 20, 24, 25, 27, 28, 39, 40.) =(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