DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC24617292·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing 3 months agoDENIED

ZAIRE HILL VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL

MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION On First And Second Causes Of Action Alleged In Cross-Complaint

Hearing date
May 11, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
Opposing Party

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Summary Adjudication rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffZaire Hill
DefendantCity and County of San Francisco

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC24617292 - May 11, 2026 Hearing date: May 11, 2026 Case number: CGC24617292 Case title: ZAIRE HILL VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24617292 | Case Title: | | ZAIRE HILL VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-05-11 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION On First And Second Causes Of Action Alleged In Cross-Complaint | Rulings: | | On the Real Property / Housing motion calendar for May 11, 2026, line 4.

Cross Complainant's Motion for Summary Adjudication on First and Second Causes of Action Alleged in Cross-Complaint is DENIED. Moving party failed to comply with CRC 3.1350(b). Compare Notice of Motion and Separate Statement. =(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