DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC22600209·sf·Civil·Real Property/Taxation
Hearing about 1 year agoDENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

PEBBLEBROOK HOTEL, LP ET AL VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Vacate Stay

Hearing date
Jul 18, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffPEBBLEBROOK HOTEL, LP
DefendantCITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC22600209 - July 18, 2025 Hearing date: July 18, 2025 Case number: CGC22600209 Case title: PEBBLEBROOK HOTEL, LP ET AL VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL Case Number: | | CGC22600209 | Case Title: | | PEBBLEBROOK HOTEL, LP ET AL VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-07-18 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion To Vacate Stay | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion calendar for July 18, 2025, line 3.

Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Stay is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The fact that the Board decision may be "final" under the Regulatory Code does not necessarily mean, as the Court required in its order granting the stay, that "the issue of property valuation determination by the Assessment Appeal Board is final." Here, the property valuation has not been finally determined because the Board's decision is currently under judicial review. This Court's prior ruling emphasized "the need for uniformity of administrative regulations," and lifting the stay here creates the risk of conflicting rulings regarding the property's value.

Relatedly, Plaintiff's request in the alternative to lift the stay as to cause of action 3 is denied because the property valuation is inseparable from theories of liability in the cause of action. For instance, cause of action 3 alleges that "[t]he Recorder improperly calculated the tax," that "the penalties are imposed at an illegally and unconstitutionally punitive rate of 35% ... [that] bears no relationship to the gravity of the offense," and that "[e]ven if additional tax was due, the penalties should be abated due to reasonable cause as discussed above." (SAC 87, 90, 93). The Court thus cannot lift the stay as to cause of action 3, as it is currently alleged. =(501/CFH)

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 tent ative 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