DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD25679338·sf·Civil·Real Property / Housing
Hearing 11 months agoCONTINUED

BAY 333 OWNER, LP VS. MARTHE SCHREIBER ET AL

Demurrer to Complaint

Hearing date
Sep 24, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Sep 30, 2025

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffBAY 333 OWNER, LP
DefendantMARTHE SCHREIBER

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD25679338 - September 24, 2025 Hearing date: September 24, 2025 Case number: CUD25679338 Case title: BAY 333 OWNER, LP VS. MARTHE SCHREIBER ET AL Case Number: | | CUD25679338 | Case Title: | | BAY 333 OWNER, LP VS. MARTHE SCHREIBER ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-09-24 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | DEMURRER to COMPLAINT | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court motion calendar for September 24, 2025, line 4. Defendant's Demurrer to Complaint is continued to September 30, 2025 to be heard by the Honorable Michelle Tong, per the order of the presiding judge. =(501/CFH) Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom [Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252].

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 tentative 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