DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC23610652·sf·Civil·Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Hearing about 1 year agoDENIED

YALONG DONG ET AL VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL

Motion For Reconsideration Of Ccsfs Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings

Hearing date
Jul 3, 2025
Department
302
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Reconsideration rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffYALONG DONG
PlaintiffYAJNG DONG
DefendantCITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Ruling

Matter on calendar for Thursday, July 3, 2025, Line 2, PLAINTIFF YALONG DONG, YAJNG DONG's Motion For Reconsideration Of CCSF's Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings. (Complete tentative ruling emailed to the parties).

Plaintiff Yalong Dong Motion For Reconsideration Of CCSF's Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings is DENIED.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/JMQ). | |

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