DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC15546152·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing about 1 year agoDENIED

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, A MUNICIPAL ET AL VS. ANNE KIHAGI ET AL

MOTION / Notce Of Motion & Motion To Vacate Order Of November 26, 2024, For Failure To Adjudicate Jurisdictional Challenges; Violation Of Cal. Rules 3.1179 And 3.1184

Hearing date
Jun 4, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
Opposing Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffCITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
DefendantANNE KIHAGI AKA ANNA KIHAGI AKA ANNA SWAIN AKA ANNE KIHAGI SWAIN AKA ANNA KIHAGI SWAIN
DefendantXELAN PROP 1, LLC
DefendantRENKA PROP, LLC
DefendantNOZARI 2, LLC
DefendantZORIALL, LLC

Ruling

Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for June 4, 2025 line 1. DEFENDANT ANNE KIHAGI AKA ANNA KIHAGI AKA ANNA SWAIN AKA ANNE KIHAGI SWAIN AKA ANNA KIHAGI SWAIN, XELAN PROP 1, LLC, RENKA PROP, LLC, NOZARI 2, LLC, ZORIALL, LLC MOTION / NOTCE OF MOTION & MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF NOVEMBER 26, 2024, FOR FAILURE TO ADJUDICATE JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES; VIOLATION OF CAL. RULES 3.1179 AND 3.1184 is DENIED.

The prior order sought to be vacated is not void for lack of jurisdiction in any respect. Even if any of defendants' arguments were substantively correct, which they do not appear to be, none of those arguments go to the jurisdiction of the court to issue the prior order. The court did not lack jurisdiction to appoint a Receiver or to provide the Receiver with the authority to take or not take the actions that he was empowered to take. Nor was the court's express or implied approval of the Receiver's report and account and actions taken by or authorized to be taken by the Receiver made without jurisdiction. Nor does the prior order violate due process. =(501/HEK)

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