MIHAL EMBERTON VS. SAN FRANCISCO CITY GOVERMENT

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC22601288 - August 14, 2025 Hearing date: August 14, 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: | | 2025-08-14 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | DEMURRER to Amended COMPLAINT | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Motion calendar for August 14, 2025, line 2.

Defendant City and County of San Francisco's Demurrer to Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH FINAL LEAVE TO AMEND to allege a viable cause of action. The Court notes that it is extremely burdensome, confusing, and unnecessary for a Complaint to have 1,169 pages that predominantly consist of case law citations when the facts of the case surround a fence built without proper permitting. In addition to adhering to the substantive rulings below, the Court orders that Plaintiff's next amended Complaint must refrain from citations to case law and instead solely allege facts, elements of causes of action, and necessary statutory or common law authority.

The demurrers to causes of action 1, 2, and 3 are SUSTAINED WITH FINAL LEAVE TO AMEND to allege viable causes of action. Generally speaking, given the numerosity of allegations that are all re-incorporated by reference, it is confusing and uncertain to have only three causes of action for what appears to be several dozen alleged constitutional violations. On the merits, the Fourth Amendment and the California Penal Code provide no basis for liability here. The proceedings regarding the construction of a fence were not criminal proceedings, and these sources of law afford no protections against a local government's use of Google Maps to view property in the context of civil permit enforcement.

Plaintiff also has not alleged a protectable property interest despite this Court repeatedly giving leave to amend to do so. Additionally, the City is immune for injuries caused by discretionary acts of its officers. Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks a statutory writ of mandate regarding the proceedings with City agencies, Plaintiff is ordered to allege, with appropriate labels, a separate writ cause of action and tailor the writ cause of action to focus solely on the precise errors and appropriate remedies for the proceedings below.

The demurrers to causes of action 4, 5, and 6 are SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The City is immune from liability, cannot be held liable for "negligent mistakes of law and facts" that purportedly occurred while Plaintiff was pursuing administrative remedies, and cannot be held liable for injuries caused by discretionary acts of its officers. Further, Plaintiff has not alleged sufficiently particular facts supporting its fraud claim after six prior Complaints. Finally, there is no private right of action for Plaintiff's alleged "conflicts of interest." =(501/CFH)