DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC25623290·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing about 2 months agoCONTINUED

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL VS. JACKSON & TAYLOR VENTURES, LLC; ET AL

DEMURRER to Amended CROSS COMPLAINT

Hearing date
Jun 29, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Aug 7, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffCITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
DefendantJACKSON & TAYLOR VENTURES, LLC
Cross-Defendant660 Peralta LLC
Cross-DefendantHan's

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC25623290 - June 29, 2026 Hearing date: June 29, 2026 Case number: CGC25623290 Case title: CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL VS. JACKSON & TAYLOR VENTURES, LLC; ET AL Case Number: | | CGC25623290 | Case Title: | | CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL VS. JACKSON & TAYLOR VENTURES, LLC; ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-06-29 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | DEMURRER to Amended CROSS COMPLAINT | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for June 29, 2026.

Line 6. Cross Defendants 660 Peralta LLC and Han's Demurrer to Amended Cross Complaint is continued to August 7, 2026 on the Court's own motion. =(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