DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC25632145·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing 2 months agoCONTINUED

851 CALIFORNIA, LLC. VS. MINERVA UNIVERSITY ET AL

DEMURRER to CROSS COMPLAINT

Hearing date
Jun 23, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Jul 24, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Parties

Cross-Defendant851 CALIFORNIA, LLC
Cross-DefendantMCG OPERATIONS, LLC
DefendantMINERVA UNIVERSITY

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC25632145 - June 23, 2026 Hearing date: June 23, 2026 Case number: CGC25632145 Case title: 851 CALIFORNIA, LLC. VS. MINERVA UNIVERSITY ET AL Case Number: | | CGC25632145 | Case Title: | | 851 CALIFORNIA, LLC. VS. MINERVA UNIVERSITY ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-06-23 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | DEMURRER to CROSS COMPLAINT | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for June 23, 2026. Line 6.

CROSS DEFENDANT 851 CALIFORNIA, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, MCG OPERATIONS, LLC DEMURRER to CROSS COMPLAINT is continued to July 24, 2026 for the moving party to comply with SFLR 2.7(B)(4) and provide a courtesy copies of the Cross-Complaint no later than July 10, 2026 with a cover letter reflecting new hearing date. (moving papers, opposition and reply received). =(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 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 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