DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD25678212·sf·Civil·Unlawful Detainer
Hearing about 1 year agoDENIED

DEMAS YAN VS. CHUNLEI LIU

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Hearing date
Aug 14, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Summary Judgment rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffDEMAS YAN
DefendantCHUNLEI LIU

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD25678212 - August 14, 2025 Hearing date: August 14, 2025 Case number: CUD25678212 Case title: DEMAS YAN VS. CHUNLEI LIU Case Number: | | CUD25678212 | Case Title: | | DEMAS YAN VS. CHUNLEI LIU | Court Date: | | 2025-08-14 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Motion calendar for August 14, 2025, line 8.

Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Plaintiff has not offered any competent evidence to support the contention that this tenancy is exempt from the just cause provisions of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance. Since plaintiff has not shown that this action is either exempt from, or complies with, the San Francisco Rent Ordinance, plaintiff has not met the burden to prove each element of the cause of action for unlawful detainer. (CCP 437c(p)(1).) =(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