DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC22601288·sf·Civil·Real Property/Housing
Hearing about 1 year agoCONTINUED

MIHAL EMBERTON VS. SAN FRANCISCO CITY GOVERMENT

DEMURRER to Amended COMPLAINT

Hearing date
Jul 1, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Jul 31, 2025

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffMIHAL EMBERTON
DefendantSAN FRANCISCO CITY GOVERMENT

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC22601288 - July 1, 2025 Hearing date: July 1, 2025 Case number: CGC22601288 Case title: MIHAL EMBERTON VS. SAN FRANCISCO CITY GOVERMENT Case Number: | | CGC22601288 | Case Title: | | MIHAL EMBERTON VS. SAN FRANCISCO CITY GOVERMENT | Court Date: | | 2025-07-01 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | DEMURRER to Amended COMPLAINT | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 1, 2025 line 2.

DEFENDANT CCSF'S DEMURRER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT is CONTINUED to July 31, 2025 on the Court's own motion. The Court notes that Plaintiff's stipulation on file is not signed by all parties, although the attached emails from Defense counsel demonstrate that July 31 is a workable date for all parties. The Court did not consider the recitals on the stipulation. =(501/CFH)

Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom [Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252]. 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