DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD26681706·sf·Civil·Real Property/Housing
Hearing 3 months agoSUSTAINED as to Affirmative Defenses #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, and #11 with leave to amend.

EAH INC. VS. MAY K. CHEUNG

DEMURRER to ANSWER to COMPLAINT

Hearing date
May 20, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffEAH INC.
DefendantMAY K. CHEUNG

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD26681706 - May 20, 2026 Hearing date: May 20, 2026 Case number: CUD26681706 Case title: EAH INC. VS. MAY K. CHEUNG Case Number: | | CUD26681706 | Case Title: | | EAH INC. VS. MAY K. CHEUNG | Court Date: | | 2026-05-20 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | DEMURRER to ANSWER to COMPLAINT | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for May 20, 2026. Line 12.

PLAINTIFF EAH INC. DEMURRER to ANSWER to COMPLAINT is SUSTAINED as to Affirmative Defenses #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, and #11 with leave to amend. Defendant pleads legal conclusions in their Answer without sufficient facts, but can cure with an Amended Answer with sufficient facts. =(501/DWH)

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 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