DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC24618659·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing about 1 year agoGRANTED with leave to amend

LIUDMILA NAUMIK VS. FLORA ANDREA AUGUSTIN ET AL

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Hearing date
Jul 21, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffLIUDMILA NAUMIK
DefendantFLORA ANDREA AUGUSTIN

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC24618659 - July 21, 2025 Hearing date: July 21, 2025 Case number: CGC24618659 Case title: LIUDMILA NAUMIK VS. FLORA ANDREA AUGUSTIN ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24618659 | Case Title: | | LIUDMILA NAUMIK VS. FLORA ANDREA AUGUSTIN ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-07-21 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion calendar for July 21, 2025, line 4.

Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED with leave to amend for Plaintiff to address issues raised by the Motion in good faith, including but not limited to, (1) the plan to install a new roof, (2) causation and reliance, (3) whether all Defendants were parties to a contract with Plaintiff, and (4) distinguishing between a seller's duties and an agent's duties.

Broadly speaking, Paragraph 19 puts Defendants on notice that the alleged misrepresentations surround a promise to install a new roof, code violations, and water intrusions. Defendant is correct that the representations of "unknown" and "did not know" do not constitute an intentional representation that "there were no problems."

However, the Complaint alleges that Defendants misrepresented an intent to "install an entire new roof," which would support a cause of action if the Complaint were not inconsistent on this point. For instance, Paragraph 19 says that all three Defendants made a representation that one Defendant will install the roof. Paragraph 15A says Mr. Lopez was told by the "owner and the realtor" not to repair the roof, which appears to omit any involvement by the broker. Then, Paragraph 43 alleges that both moving Defendants "instructed" Mr. Lopez to not repair the roof correctly.

=(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