DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD25679548·sf·Civil·Real Property/Housing
Hearing 11 months agoOFF CALENDAR. Insufficient notice per CCP 1010.6 and 1170.

MARK JOHNSON VS. ALFREDO HUERTAS ET AL

DEMURRER to COMPLAINT

Hearing date
Sep 10, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffMARK JOHNSON
DefendantALFREDO HUERTAS

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD25679548 - September 10, 2025 Hearing date: September 10, 2025 Case number: CUD25679548 Case title: MARK JOHNSON VS. ALFREDO HUERTAS ET AL Case Number: | | CUD25679548 | Case Title: | | MARK JOHNSON VS. ALFREDO HUERTAS ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-09-10 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | DEMURRER to COMPLAINT | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for Sept 10, 2025. Line 10. DEFENDANT ALFREDO HUERTAS DEMURRER to COMPLAINT is OFF CALENDAR.

Insufficient notice per CCP 1010.6 and 1170. =(501/SKF) 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 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