FICTITIOUS BUSINESS
NAME STATEMENT
FILE NO. 2026-0408877
Fictitious Business Name(s): The TemPositions Group of Companies, On Call Counsel, TemPositions Health Care, AcctPositions, and CompuForce, 622 Third Ave. 39th flr. New York, NY 10017. Full name of registrant #1: Essey Group, LLC (NY) 622 Third Ave. 39th flr. New York, NY 10017. This business is conducted by a limited liability company.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the above-listed fictitious business name on 10/25/2025.
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Francisco on:
March 31, 2026
Pub Dates:
April 19, 26, May 3, May 10, 2026 Show more »
SUMMONS (JOINDER) FL-375 for DUSTIN JOHNSON Case # FLD-24-397164 DUSTIN JOHNSON is hereby summoned to appear, in person or remotely, at the next hearing on May 4, 2026, at 9:00 AM in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, Room 403. A pleading has been filed by KASTURI BASU & SAIKAT BASU, maternal grandparents of ANAYA MATA, seeking visitation rights. All reasonable efforts to serve court documents (Notice of Motion and Declaration for Joinder) have been unsuccessful. Attempts included postal and certified mail to all known and skip-trace addresses, all returned undelivered except one associated with MARGO MATA in Davis, CA. A process server attempted service at multiple addresses, including locations in Florida, without success. An additional attempt to serve documents through MARGO MATA was refused. Assistance from the Yolo County Sheriff's Office also failed, as MARGO MATA declined to accept documents on behalf of DUSTIN JOHNSON. A due diligence report has been submitted to the court. As all efforts to locate and serve DUSTIN JOHNSON have been exhausted, the court has authorized service by publication.
NOTICE OF MOTION & DECLARATION FOR JOINDER (filed on 02/23/2026) Petitioner: DUSTIN JOHNSON. Claimants to be joined: SAIKAT BASU & KASTURI BASU, maternal grandparents of Anaya Mata. Grandparents have cared for Anaya since birth and acted as primary caregivers, providing a safe and stable environment when her parents lost custody due to negligence. They seek joinder in case FLD-24-397164 and request visitation rights in the best interest of the child. Anaya shares a close bond with her grandparents and is comfortable in their home. As an infant, she and her mother were removed from an abusive situation involving DUSTIN JOHNSON following a distress call from her mother, Sampurna Basu. KASTURI BASU has been a kindergarten teacher in California for 22 years. Both grandparents are certified foster parents and mandated reporters. In June 2022, CPS required Anaya's mother to reside with the child under grandparents' supervision. In December 2022, grandparents reported a safety concern involving the mother, fulfilling their mandated duties. Subsequently, the mother removed Anaya from their care, placing her with the paternal grandmother, and later lost custody. Grandparents later secured visitation rights through CPS. Since DUSTIN JOHNSON obtained full custody in 2023, Anaya has been deprived of contact with her maternal grandparents. Grandparents do not seek to separate Anaya from her father but request visitation rights and joinder in the case, particularly in the absence of her mother. Show more »
Precious Thyme; Precious Thyme: Home Ingredient Prep
The registrant(s) listed below have abandoned the use of the following fictitious business name(s). Precious Thyme; Precious Thyme: Home Ingredient Prep. The fictitious business name was filed in the County of San Francisco under file #2024-0402772. Full name of registrant #1. Lilia Marie Rohmann, 887 Bush Street APT 308, San Francisco, CA 94108. This business was conducted by a limited liability company.
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Francisco on Mar. 17, 2026.
Published on: April 22, 29, May 6, 13, 2026 Show more »
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT
FILE NO. 2026-0408749
Fictitious business name: Taqueria San Miguel de Allende, 3251 26th St. Apt 13, San Francisco, CA 94110. Full name of registrant #1 : Jose Antonio Anaya, 3251 26th St., Apt 13, San Francisco, CA 94110. This business is conducted by an individual.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the above-listed fictitious business name on 3/13/2026 This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Francisco on: March 13,2026
Pub Dates:
April 18, 25, May 2, 9, 2026 Show more »
INVITATION to Bid for the Yerba Buena Island Treasure Island
Road Improvement Project (25/26-08)
The San Francisco County Transportation Authority (Transportation Authority) will receive sealed construction bids for the TREASURE ISLAND ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. The Bid Submission Deadline is Tuesday, May 19, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. (PDT). Paper bids will not be acceptable. Electronic bids shall be submitted through www.bidexpress.com.
All bidders must register on www.bidexpress.com and create Digital ID through Bid Express to submit a bid.Contract Documents will be available from www.bidexpress.com/solicitations/46499. Any addenda issued for this project will also be available at this website. Bid forms for this work will be found and completed at www.bidexpress.com/solicitations/46499. A non-mandatory Pre-Bid Meeting for the project will be held electronically on Tuesday, April 28, 2026, at 1:00 p.m. (PDT) at the virtual meeting platform Zoom. Attendees can register by visiting www.sfcta.org/TIRI-prebid. Bidder inquiries are due Tuesday, May 12, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. (PDT) at the Transportation Authority's solicitation page at www.bidexpress.com/solicitations/46499, under the section titled "Q&A."
Bids will be opened electronically and read aloud on Tuesday, May 19, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. (PDT) at the virtual meeting platform Zoom. Attendees can register by visiting www.sfcta.org/TIRI-bid-opening. The project consists of reconstruction of Treasure Island Road on Yerba Buena Island, in the City and County of San Francisco. Work includes a new soil nail retaining wall, demolition of existing crib walls and roadway grading, paving, drainage, signing, pavement delineation, street lighting, and concrete barrier. The Engineer's cost estimate is approximately $25,900,000. Work shall be completed within 310 working days. A Class A Contractor's license is required and the successful bidder must pay prevailing wages. Project funding includes Federal, State and Local sources. Show more »
Notice of Application to Establish a Branch of a State Member Bank
United Business Bank, Walnut Creek, CA intends to apply to the Federal Reserve Board for permission to establish a branch at 121 Spear Street, Suite B14, San Francisco, CA 94105. The Federal Reserve considers a number of factors in deciding whether to approve the application including the record of performance of applicant banks in helping to meet local credit needs.
You are invited to submit comments in writing on this application to the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, P.O. Box 7702, San Francisco, CA 94120-7702, or via email: SF.Supervision.Comments.Applications@sf.frb.org. The comment period will not end before May 5, 2026. The Board's procedures for processing applications may be found at 12 C.F.R. Part 262. Procedures for processing protested applications may be found at 12 C.F.R. 262.25. To obtain a copy of the Federal Reserve Board's procedures, or if you need more information about how to submit your comments on the application, contact Keith Dudley, Vice President, Applications, Enforcement, Community Regional Portfolio Supervision, 415-974-2386. The Federal Reserve will consider your comments and any request for a public meeting or formal hearing on the application if they are received in writing by the Reserve Bank on or before the last day of the comment period. Show more »
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME
Case No. CNC-26-560611
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS:
Petitioner Marissa Elizabeth Kane filed a petition with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
Present name: Marissa Elizabeth Kane
Proposed name: Marissa Elizabeth Kane-Banceanu
THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing.
NOTICE OF HEARING:
Date: May 26, 2026
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept.: 103N
Room: 103N
The address of the court is: Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102.
A copy of this Order to Show Cause shall be published at least once each week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing on the petition in the following newspaper of general circulation, printed in this county: San Francisco Chronicle.
Date: April 10, 2026
Judge of the Superior Court: Michelle Tong Show more »
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS
NAME STATEMENT
FILE NO. 2026-0408965
Fictitious Business Name(s): The Spicy Shrimp, 150 Waverly Place, San Francisco, CA 94108, County of San Francisco. Full name of registrant #1: H & J DEHLI LLC (CA), 150 Waverly Place, San Francisco, CA 94108. This business is conducted by a limited liability company.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the above-listed fictitious business name on 12/1/2016.
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Francisco on:
April. 8, 2026
Publication Dates:
April 17, 24, May 1, 8, 2026 Show more »
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
DISTRICT REGULATION 3: FEES
Notice is hereby given that the Board of Directors of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) will conduct a public hearing on June 3, 2026, at 10:00 am or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard to consider adoption of proposed amendments to Regulation 3: Fees.
At the public hearing on June 3, 2026, the Board of Directors will consider adopting proposed amendments to Regulation 3 fee schedules A, E, F, G-1 through G-5, H, I, K, M, P, S, V and W, and other related changes. These proposed amendments would increase fees between 2.3% and 15%, depending on the fee schedule, and would (1) reduce fees in Schedule R by 20%, (2) increase the base Risk Assessment fee in Schedules B and C by 2.3%, (3) increase the Risk Assessment fee for existing gas stations by 15% in Schedule D.A, (4) increase administrative fees in Section 300 by 2.3% (5) add a new fee for Emission Reduction Credit Reissuance (6) remove the delinquent fee for permit and registration renewals, (7) reclassify gasification/pyrolysis sources to Schedule G-1, (8) delete obsolete citations, and (9) clean up the general formatting and text of the regulation.
The Board of Directors will also hold a public hearing on April 29, 2026, at 11:00 or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, to consider and receive testimony on the proposed amendments. This will be an informational hearing only; the Board of Directors will not take action on any of the proposed amendments at the April 29, 2026, hearing.
Public hearings will be held at the Bay Area Metro Center, 375 Beale Street, San Francisco, CA, 94105. Information on the meetings will be available by visiting the Air District's homepage at www.baaqmd.gov. Meeting materials will be available at least 72 hours before the meeting and a link to attend virtually via web browser will be active 5 minutes before meeting time. Verbal comments are welcome up to the day of and during the Public Hearings.
Copies of the proposed amendments and associated documents may be viewed on the Air District's website at http://www.baaqmd.gov/reg3. Copies are also available by calling Air District staff at (415) 749-4990. Staff will accept written comments on the proposed amendments until May 15, 2026. Please direct comments or questions to Mark Gage, Principal Air Quality Engineer, 375 Beale Street, Suite 600, San Francisco, CA, 94105, (415) 749-8705, or electronically at MGage@baaqmd.gov (preferred).
Philip M. Fine, Ph.D.
Air Pollution Control Officer
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
4/18/26
CNS-4034449# Show more »
PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD (PCJPB)
PUBLIC HEARING & MEETINGS NOTICE
Proposed Fee Changes
The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB), which operates Caltrain, will hold a public hearing on April 29, 2026, to receive public comment on Proposed Updates to the Policy Regarding Conveyance of Property Interests Involving Property Owned by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board and Fee Schedule.
The JPB Technology, Operations, Planning, and Safety (TOPS) Committee will hold a public hearing on April 29, 2026, to receive public comments on proposed updates to the Policy Regarding Conveyance of Property Interests Involving Property Owned by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board and Fee Schedule.
The JPB routinely receives third-party requests from utility companies, public agencies, and private entities seeking to access or occupy JPB property for non-rail purposes. These activities are governed by the Property Conveyance Policy, first adopted in 2010 and updated in 2021. The Policy guides third-party use of JPB property, including applicable Property Access Agreements, review processes, and fees. It is intended to ensure that third-party uses protect JPB property interests, remain compatible with rail operations and future needs, and are reviewed through a consistent and transparent process.
Proposed updates to the Policy and Fee Schedule are intended to:
· Support effective and efficient leasing and property management
· Improve cost recovery and revenue alignment
· Enhance policy clarity and usability
Public Hearing
The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB) invites public comment on the proposed changes at the hearing. The public may participate in person, via a Zoom web link, and/or by phone.
Wednesday, April 29, 2026 at 1:30p.m.
(or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard)
In Person:
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board
1250 San Carlos Avenue, Bacciocco Auditorium, 2nd Floor
San Carlos, CA 94070
Via Zoom: Webinar Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84462610112?pwd=YaW74NDN3spJtMYdJhfIBBuIeQXkqA.1
Access via Telephone: 1.669.219.2599 | Webinar/Meeting ID: 844 6261 0112 | Passcode: 870725
Prior to the hearing, comments may be sent by mail, e-mail, or phone:
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, ATTN: JPB Secretary
1250 San Carlos Ave, San Carlos, CA 94070 publiccomment@caltrain.com | 1.650.551.6108 (TTY 650.508.6448)
For translation or interpretation assistance, call Caltrain at 1.800.660.4287 at least three days before the meeting.
Para solicitar servicio de traducción o interpretación, llame a Caltrain al 1.800.660.4287 al menos tres días antes de la reunión. Show more »
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
In Re the JEROME C. TESTO REVOCABLE TRUST, CREATED BY JEROME C. TESTO, DECEDENT PTR-26-309258 NOTICE TO CREDITORS [Probate Code Sec. 19040]
Notice is hereby given to the creditors and contingent creditors of the above-named decedent, who died January 1, 2026, that all persons having claims against the decedent are required to file them with the San Francisco County Superior Court, Probate Division, at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102-4514, and deliver pursuant to Section 1215 of the California Probate Code a copy to Gregory C. Testo, as trustee of the Jerome C. Testo Revocable Trust, wherein the Decedent was the settlor, at c/o Collins Law Corporation, 700 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 199, Larkspur, California 94939, within the later of four months after April 16, 2026 (the date of first publication of notice to creditors), or, if notice is mailed or personally delivered to you, 60 days after the date this notice is mailed or personally delivered to you. A claim form may be obtained from the court clerk. For your protection, you are encouraged to file your claim by certified mail, with return receipt requested.
Dated: March 5, 2026
Brian M. Collins
Collins Law Corporation
700 Larkspur Landing Circle #199
Larkspur, CA 94939 Show more »
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NO. CNC-26-560606 TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: Hannah Aleesa Werthman filed a petition with this court for a decree changing names as follows: Present name: Hannah Aleesa Werthman Proposed name: Hannah Aleesa Brae THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing. NOTICE OF HEARING Date: May 21, 2026 Time: 9:00 AM Dept.: 103N Room: 103N The address of the court is: 400 McAllister St., San Francisco, CA 94102-4515. A copy of this Order to Show Cause shall be published at least once each week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing on the petition in the following newspaper of general circulation, printed in this county: San Francisco Chronicle Apr 08, 2026 PUB: APR 15, 22, 29, MAY 6, 2026. Show more »
SUMMONS(CITACION JUDICIAL)CASE NUMBER (NUMERO DE CASO): 25CV114162
NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court.
There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
¡AVISO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 días, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su versión. Lea la información acontinuación.Tiene 30 DÍAS DE CALENDARIO después de que le entreguen esta citación y papeles legales para presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefónica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y más información en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en la corte que le quede más cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentación, pida al secretario de la corte que le dé un formulario de exención de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corte le podrá quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin más advertencia.Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que llame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de remisión a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services,(www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov) o poniéndose en contacto con la corte o el colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobre cualquier recuperación de $10,000 ó más de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesión de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene quepagar el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar el caso.The name and address of the court is (El nombre y direccion de la corte es): Superior Court of California County of Alameda – Rene C. Davidson Courthouse, 1225 Fallon Street, Oakland, CA 94612
The name, address, and telephone nuber of the plaintiff's attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is (El nombre, la direccion y el numero del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es): Christopher K. Roberts, Esq. (SBN 232791) | Nicholas I. Myers, Esq. (SBN 322661), 9100 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 465E, Beverly Hills, CA 90212. TEL: 310-777-7877 FAX: 310-777-7855
Date (Fecha) 3/11/2025 Chad Finke, Executive Officer / Clerk of the Court Clerk, by (Secretario) D. Franklin, Deputy (Adjunto) (Seal)
Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages and Personal Injuries
1. Negligence
2. Negligent Entrustment
Demand for a Jury Trial
Plaintiff ROMEO TEJADA MANCIA ("Plaintiff") alleges as follows:
PARTIES1. Plaintiff ROMEO TEJADA MANCIA is, and at all times relevant hereto was, an individual residing in the County of Contra Costa, State of California.
2. Defendant NOEMIE AVIVA SERFATY ("Defendant SERFATY") is, and at all times relevant hereto was, an individual residing in the County of San Francisco, State of California.
3. Defendant JEREMY ADAM MILLER ("Defendant MILLER") is, and at all times relevant hereto was, an individual residing in the County of San Francisco, State of California, and the registered owner of the vehicle driven by Defendant SERFATY at the time of the collision.
4. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, and therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiff's injuries as herein alleged were proximately caused by such Defendants.
5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein mentioned, all Defendants, including DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, (individually, and togther, referred to herein as "Defendants") and each of them, were the agents, servants, employees, joint venturers, and/or partners of the remaining Defendants, and were, as such, acting within the course and scope of said agency, employment, joint venture, and/or partnership, and that each and every Defendant, as aforesaid, when acting as a principal, was negligent in the selection, hiring, and supervision of each and every other Defendant as an agent, servant, employee, joint venturer, and/or partner.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE6. Venue is proper in this Court because the accident which forms the basis of this action occurred in the County of Alameda, State of California.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION7. On or about April 30, 2023, at approximately 7:13 p.m., Plaintiff was lawfully operating a 2022 Ram Tow Truck while traveling southbound on Interstate 580 between Oakland and San Leandro in lane #2.
8. At the same time, Defendant SERFATY was operating a 2001 Toyota Tacoma owned by Defendant MILLER while traveling southbound on Interstate 580 in lane #3, to the right of Plaintiff.
9. Defendant SERFATY was traveling at an unsafe speed, lost control of her vehicle, and abruptly turned the steering wheel to the left, causing her to merge into Plaintiff's lane of travel, in direct violation of California Vehicle Code § 21658(a).
10. As a direct result of Defendant SERFATY's unsafe and unlawful lane change, the left front side of the Toyota Tacoma she was driving collided with the right front side of Plaintiff's vehicle.
11. As stated in the California Highway Patrol Traffic Collision Report (Report No. 9370-2023-01334), Defendant SERFATY admitted she was "going too fast" and "lost control" of her vehicle. Defendant SERFATY turned her vehicle from a direct course of travel into lane #2, an area already occupied by Plaintiff's vehicle, causing the collision.
12. The California Highway Patrol determined that Defendant SERFATY violated California Vehicle Code § 21658(a) by making an unsafe lane change, which was the primary cause of the collision.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE(Against All Defendants)
13. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
14. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, owed a duty of reasonable care to Plaintiff in the operation of their motor vehicles on public roadways.
15. Defendant SERFATY breached said duty of care by: a. Operating a motor vehicle at an excessive speed; b. Failing to maintain proper control of her vehicle; c. Making an unsafe lane change in violation of
California Vehicle Code § 21658(a); d. Failing to keep a proper lookout for other vehicles; e. Failing to operate her vehicle in a safe and reasonable manner; and f. Otherwise failing to exercise the care and caution that a reasonably prudent person would exercise under similar circumstances.
16. Defendant MILLER, as the owner of the vehicle driven by Defendant SERFATY, is vicariously liable for Defendant SERFATY's negligence pursuant to California Vehicle Code § 17150.
17. At all relevant times here Defendants, and each of them, negligently owned, leased, repaired, maintained, and operated said vehicle.
18. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff suffered severe bodily injuries causing past and future physical pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life.
19. As a further direct and proximate result of the aforementioned negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, medical and related expenses.
20. As a further direct and proximate result of the aforementioned negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, lost wages and loss of earning capacity.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTIONNEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT(Against Defendant MILLER and DOES 1-20)21. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
22. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant MILLER was the owner of the 2001 Toyota Tacoma being operated by Defendant SERFATY at the time of the collision.
23. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant MILLER entrusted his vehicle to Defendant SERFATY.
24. Defendants, while engaged as employees and agents of each, the other, did so negligently hire, train, supervise & retain Defendant SERFATY, and the remaining Defendants.
25. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant MILLER knew, or should have known, that Defendant SERFATY was an incompetent or unfit driver and that entrusting his vehicle to her created an unreasonable risk of harm to others.
26. Defendant SERFATY's negligent operation of the entrusted vehicle was a foreseeable result of Defendant MILLER's negligent entrustment.
27. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant MILLER's negligent entrustment, Plaintiff sustained severe and permanent injuries, as set forth above.
28. Plaintiff has been unable to work since the date of the accident, resulting in substantial lost wages and loss of earning capacity.
29. As a further direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, general damages including physical pain, mental suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, inconvenience, emotional distress, and other damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendants, and each of them, as follows:
(1) For economic damages, including lost wages, lost employee benefits, medical expenses and other economic obligations incurred according to proof at trial;
(2) For non-economic damages, including physical pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and anxiety associated with his injuries;
(3) For pre-judgment interest at the maximum legal rate;
(4) For post-judgment interest at the maximum legal rate;
(5) For costs of suit herein incurred;
(6) For such other relief that at the Court may deem just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff requests that the present matter be set for jury trial.
DATED: March 11, 2025
RAFII & ASSOCITES, P.C.
CHRISTOPHER K. ROBERTS, ESQ.
NICHOLAS I. MYERS, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
ROMEO TEJEDA MANCIA Show more »
SUMMONS
(CITACION JUDICIAL)
CASE NUMBER (NUMERO DE CASO): 25CV114162
NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court.
There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
¡AVISO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 días, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su versión. Lea la información a
continuación.
Tiene 30 DÍAS DE CALENDARIO después de que le entreguen esta citación y papeles legales para presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefónica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y más información en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en la corte que le quede más cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentación, pida al secretario de la corte que le dé un formulario de exención de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corte le podrá quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin más advertencia.
Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que llame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de remisión a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services,
(www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov) o poniéndose en contacto con la corte o el colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobre cualquier recuperación de $10,000 ó más de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesión de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que
pagar el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar el caso.
The name and address of the court is (El nombre y direccion de la corte es): Superior Court of California County of Alameda – Rene C. Davidson Courthouse, 1225 Fallon Street, Oakland, CA 94612
The name, address, and telephone nuber of the plaintiff's attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is (El nombre, la direccion y el numero del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es): Christopher K. Roberts, Esq. (SBN 232791) | Nicholas I. Myers, Esq. (SBN 322661), 9100 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 465E, Beverly Hills, CA 90212. TEL: 310-777-7877 FAX: 310-777-7855
Date (Fecha) 3/11/2025 Chad Finke, Executive Officer / Clerk of the Court Clerk, by (Secretario) D. Franklin, Deputy (Adjunto) (Seal)
Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages and Personal Injuries
1. Negligence
2. Negligent Entrustment
Demand for a Jury Trial
Plaintiff ROMEO TEJADA MANCIA ("Plaintiff") alleges as follows:
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff ROMEO TEJADA MANCIA is, and at all times relevant hereto was, an individual residing in the County of Contra Costa, State of California.
2. Defendant NOEMIE AVIVA SERFATY ("Defendant SERFATY") is, and at all times relevant hereto was, an individual residing in the County of San Francisco, State of California.
3. Defendant JEREMY ADAM MILLER ("Defendant MILLER") is, and at all times relevant hereto was, an individual residing in the County of San Francisco, State of California, and the registered owner of the vehicle driven by Defendant SERFATY at the time of the collision.
4. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, and therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiff's injuries as herein alleged were proximately caused by such Defendants.
5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein mentioned, all Defendants, including DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, (individually, and togther, referred to herein as "Defendants") and each of them, were the agents, servants, employees, joint venturers, and/or partners of the remaining Defendants, and were, as such, acting within the course and scope of said agency, employment, joint venture, and/or partnership, and that each and every Defendant, as aforesaid, when acting as a principal, was negligent in the selection, hiring, and supervision of each and every other Defendant as an agent, servant, employee, joint venturer, and/or partner.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. Venue is proper in this Court because the accident which forms the basis of this action occurred in the County of Alameda, State of California.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
7. On or about April 30, 2023, at approximately 7:13 p.m., Plaintiff was lawfully operating a 2022 Ram Tow Truck while traveling southbound on Interstate 580 between Oakland and San Leandro in lane #2.
8. At the same time, Defendant SERFATY was operating a 2001 Toyota Tacoma owned by Defendant MILLER while traveling southbound on Interstate 580 in lane #3, to the right of Plaintiff.
9. Defendant SERFATY was traveling at an unsafe speed, lost control of her vehicle, and abruptly turned the steering wheel to the left, causing her to merge into Plaintiff's lane of travel, in direct violation of California Vehicle Code § 21658(a).
10. As a direct result of Defendant SERFATY's unsafe and unlawful lane change, the left front side of the Toyota Tacoma she was driving collided with the right front side of Plaintiff's vehicle.
11. As stated in the California Highway Patrol Traffic Collision Report (Report No. 9370-2023-01334), Defendant SERFATY admitted she was "going too fast" and "lost control" of her vehicle. Defendant SERFATY turned her vehicle from a direct course of travel into lane #2, an area already occupied by Plaintiff's vehicle, causing the collision.
12. The California Highway Patrol determined that Defendant SERFATY violated California Vehicle Code § 21658(a) by making an unsafe lane change, which was the primary cause of the collision.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE
(Against All Defendants)
13. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
14. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, owed a duty of reasonable care to Plaintiff in the operation of their motor vehicles on public roadways.
15. Defendant SERFATY breached said duty of care by: a. Operating a motor vehicle at an excessive speed; b. Failing to maintain proper control of her vehicle; c. Making an unsafe lane change in violation of
California Vehicle Code § 21658(a); d. Failing to keep a proper lookout for other vehicles; e. Failing to operate her vehicle in a safe and reasonable manner; and f. Otherwise failing to exercise the care and caution that a reasonably prudent person would exercise under similar circumstances.
16. Defendant MILLER, as the owner of the vehicle driven by Defendant SERFATY, is vicariously liable for Defendant SERFATY's negligence pursuant to California Vehicle Code § 17150.
17. At all relevant times here Defendants, and each of them, negligently owned, leased, repaired, maintained, and operated said vehicle.
18. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff suffered severe bodily injuries causing past and future physical pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life.
19. As a further direct and proximate result of the aforementioned negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, medical and related expenses.
20. As a further direct and proximate result of the aforementioned negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, lost wages and loss of earning capacity.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT
(Against Defendant MILLER and DOES 1-20)
21. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
22. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant MILLER was the owner of the 2001 Toyota Tacoma being operated by Defendant SERFATY at the time of the collision.
23. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant MILLER entrusted his vehicle to Defendant SERFATY.
24. Defendants, while engaged as employees and agents of each, the other, did so negligently hire, train, supervise & retain Defendant SERFATY, and the remaining Defendants.
25. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant MILLER knew, or should have known, that Defendant SERFATY was an incompetent or unfit driver and that entrusting his vehicle to her created an unreasonable risk of harm to others.
26. Defendant SERFATY's negligent operation of the entrusted vehicle was a foreseeable result of Defendant MILLER's negligent entrustment.
27. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant MILLER's negligent entrustment, Plaintiff sustained severe and permanent injuries, as set forth above.
28. Plaintiff has been unable to work since the date of the accident, resulting in substantial lost wages and loss of earning capacity.
29. As a further direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, general damages including physical pain, mental suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, inconvenience, emotional distress, and other damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendants, and each of them, as follows:
(1) For economic damages, including lost wages, lost employee benefits, medical expenses and other economic obligations incurred according to proof at trial;
(2) For non-economic damages, including physical pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and anxiety associated with his injuries;
(3) For pre-judgment interest at the maximum legal rate;
(4) For post-judgment interest at the maximum legal rate;
(5) For costs of suit herein incurred;
(6) For such other relief that at the Court may deem just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff requests that the present matter be set for jury trial.
DATED: March 11, 2025
RAFII & ASSOCITES, P.C.
CHRISTOPHER K. ROBERTS, ESQ.
NICHOLAS I. MYERS, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
ROMEO TEJEDA MANCIA Show more »
NOTICE OF PROBATE
Michael J. Stecher
SBN 45994
Michael J. Stecher Law Firm
348 Broadway, Suite 2
Millbrae, CA 94030
Telephone: 650-652-9424
Email: mp1944@aol.com
Petitioners: BROOKE MUELLER and WILLIAM GORDON PENNINGTON
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
400 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
ESTATE OF GREGORY MICHAEL PENNINGTON, AKA GREGORY M. PENNINGTON, AKA GREGORY PENNINGTON, AKA GREG M. PENNINGTON, AKA GREG PENNINGTON,DECEDENT
NOTICE OF PETITION TO
ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
GREGORY MICHAEL PENNINGTON, AKA GREGORY M. PENNINGTON, AKA GREGORY
PENNINGTON, AKA GREG M. PENNINGTON, AKA GREG PENNINGTON
CASE No: PES-26-309343
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of GREGORY MICHAEL PENNINGTON, AKA GREGORY M. PENNINGTON, AKA GREGORY PENNINGTON, AKA GREG M. PENNINGTON, AKA GREG PENNINGTON. A Petition for Probate has been filed by BROOKE MUELLER and WILLIAM GORDON PENNINGTON in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN FRANCISCO. The Petition for Probate requests that BROOKE MUELLER and WILLIAM GORDON PENNINGTON be appointed as personal representatives to administer the estate of the decedent. The petition requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representatives to take many actions without obtaining court approval.
Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representatives will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held as follows:
Date: May 4, 2026 at 9:00 AM, Dept. 204, SUPERIOR COURT
OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102.
If you object to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
If you are a creditor or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing a personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code. Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
You may examine the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for Petitioners:
Michael J. Stecher
348 Broadway, Suite 2
Millbrae, CA 94030
Telephone: 650-652-9424
Publication dates:April 14, 21 and 28, 2026 Show more »
The West Oakland Job Resource Center (WOJRC) is soliciting competitive bids to purchase one battery-electric forklift for use in WOJRC's Transportation Industry training program. The forklift must be battery-powered (lead acid) and have a maximum lifting capacity of 3,000 lbs, along with other specifications articulated in the request for bid documents.
A pre-bid conference call will be held via Zoom on April 14 at 9 a.m. PT, in which WOJRC staff will give participants bid instructions and answer questions. For more information and to register for the pre-bid conference call, contact Tarecq Amer at (510) 419-0509. Show more »
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS
NAME STATEMENT
FILE NO. 2026-0408926
Fictitious Business Name(s): The Shop, 160a Leland Ave., San Francisco, CA. 94134, County of San Francisco. Full name of registrant #1: William Shannon, 160a Leland Ave., San Francisco, CA. 94134. This business is conducted by a sole proprietorship.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the above-listed fictitious business name on 4/3/2026
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Francisco on:
April 3, 2026
Pub Dates: April 10, 17, 24, May 1, 2026 Show more »
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS
NAME STATEMENT
FILE NO. 2026-0408786
Fictitious Business Name(s): Anjali Vichare Leadership Consulting, 927 Ortega St, San Francisco, CA 94122, County of San Francisco. Full name of registrant #1: Clair Anjali Vichare, 927 Ortega St, San Francisco, CA 94122. This business is conducted by an individual.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the above-listed fictitious business name on 3/11/2026
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Francisco on:
March 18, 2026
Pub Dates:
April 14, 21, 28 and May 5 2026 Show more »
Notice is hereby given that Timothy Daniel Godley has filed a petition with the San Francisco County Superior Court requesting a change of name to Timothy Daniel Rosewall-Godley. Any person who objects to the proposed change must file a written objection with the court before the scheduled hearing date of May 14, 2026. Show more »
NOTICE OF LIEN SALE
IStorage SELF STORAGE
Notice is hereby given pursuant to California Business and Professional Codes # 21700-21716, Section 2328 of the UCC of the Penal Code Section 535 the Under-Signed, IStorage, will sell at public sale on or after said date with bidding to take place on Storage Treasures.com the following misc. goods: Thursday the 16th day of April, 2026 at 10:00AM-
IStorage, 4050 19th Ave, San Francisco, CA 94132-Martell Stevenson
Goods must be paid by credit card, debit card, or money order only and removed within 48 hours of sale. Sale is subject to cancellation in the event of settlement between owner and obligated party. Show more »
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS
NAME STATEMENT
FILE NO. 2026-0408867
Fictitious Business Name(s): Flynn Investments, 1717 Powell Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, CA 94133, County of San Francisco. Full name of registrant #1: Flynn Family Investments Inc. 1717 Powell Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, CA 94133, County of San Francisco. This business is conducted by corporation.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the above-listed fictitious business name on 7/31/2020.
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Francisco on:
March 31, 2026
Pub Dates: 4/8, 4/15, 4/22, 4/29/26 Show more »
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SACRAMENTO DIVISION
In re MARE ISLAND DRY DOCK, LLC,
Debtor.
Case No. 26-20777-B-11
Chapter 11
NOTICE OF MODIFIED GENERAL CLAIMS BAR DATE
TO ALL CREDITORS, ALL PARTIES IN INTEREST, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the time to file a proof of claim or proof of interest, other than on behalf of a governmental entity, under Rule 3003(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, previously set for June 23, 2026, has been rescheduled and advanced to May 1, 2026. Any non-governmental proofs of claim or interest must be filed with the above-referenced Court on or before May 1, 2026, at 11:59 pm PDT.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that a proof of claim is a signed statement describing a creditor's claim. A proof of claim form may be obtained at www.uscourts.gov, www.caeb.uscourts.gov, or at one of the Eastern District of California divisional offices. You may also complete a paperless proof of claim online at www.caeb.uscourts.gov/ElectronicClaims.aspx.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that your claim will be allowed in the amount scheduled unless:
1. your claim is designated as disputed, contingent, or unliquidated;
2. you file a proof of claim in a different amount; or
3. you receive another notice.
If your claim is not scheduled or if your claim is designated as disputed, contingent, or unliquidated, you must file a proof of claim or you might not be paid on your claim and you might be unable to vote on a plan. You may file a proof of claim even if your claim is scheduled.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that you may review the schedules at the bankruptcy clerk's office or online at https://pacer.uscourts.gov or by written request to counsel for the Debtor, Binder Malter Harris & Rome-Banks LLP, at 490 Chadbourne Road, Suite A137, Fairfield, CA 94534.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that secured creditors retain rights in their collateral regardless of whether they file a proof of claim. Filing a proof of claim submits a creditor to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court, with consequences a lawyer can explain. For example, a secured creditor who files a proof of claim may surrender important nonmonetary rights, including the right to a jury trial. Show more »
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO CIRCULATE INITIATIVE PETITION
Notice is hereby given by the person whose name appears hereon of their intention to circulate a petition within the City and County of San Francisco for the purpose of placing on the November 3, 2026 general election ballot a measure to improve accountability within the executive branch and allow the Mayor to reorganize certain functions among city departments.
A statement of the reasons of the proposed action as contemplated in the petition is as follows:
San Francisco's Charter now spans 548 pages, making it the longest of any major American city. More than 90 percent of City departments are embedded in the Charter itself, meaning even modest organizational improvements require voter approval. Department heads oversee 99 percent of City staff and resources, yet the Mayor has direct hire-and-removal authority over only a small fraction of them. In recent instances involving serious ethical lapses, the Mayor lacked authority to immediately remove department heads. The Charter also requires the Mayor to directly supervise nearly 50 department heads—an impractical structure for a government with more than 30,000 employees. This structure diffuses responsibility and makes it difficult for voters to know who is accountable when services fall short.
The proposed measure restores clear lines of accountability within the executive branch while preserving oversight by the Board of Supervisors. These changes ensure that when San Franciscans elect a Mayor, they know who is responsible for delivering results.
_/s/________________
Daniel Lurie
Proponent of the Initiative
The city attorney has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure:
CHANGES TO EXECUTIVE BRANCH MANAGEMENT
The Way It Is Now
The Mayor is the chief executive officer of the City and is responsible for oversight of all departments and governmental units in the executive branch, which includes most City departments.
The Mayor has authority to transfer functions and reorganize executive branch departments created by ordinance, subject to rejection by the Board of Supervisors. The Mayor may not transfer functions or reorganize department powers and duties established in the City's Charter. Those functions, powers, and duties may be changed only by an amendment to the Charter approved by the voters.
The Mayor may not hire deputy mayors who supervise most departments created in the Charter.
When a department operates under a board or commission established in the Charter, the Mayor typically must select a department head from a list of candidates recommended by the board or commission. For most of those departments, the board or commission may fire the department head but the Mayor may not.
The Mayor, Board of Supervisors, and other elected officials have authority to appoint certain members to the boards and commissions established in the Charter. In most cases, an appointed member may only be suspended or removed for cause, after a process to determine that the member engaged in official misconduct or committed a felony involving moral turpitude.
The Proposal
The proposed measure would allow the Mayor to reorganize executive branch departments that exist under the Charter, with certain exceptions. The Mayor could transfer powers and duties set forth in the Charter, consolidate one or more departments together under a single department head, and assign the oversight of transferred functions to a different commission. The Mayor could not reorganize the functions assigned to the following departments: the City Administrator, Controller, Board of Appeals, Port, Airport, Asian Art Museum, Fine Art Museums, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, Public Utilities Commission, Civil Service Commission, Department of Human Resources, Retirement Board, Health Service System, Department of Elections, Ethics Commission, or departments headed by other elected officials. The duties of the Department of Police Accountability could not be transferred to the Police Department, nor could the duties of the Sheriff's Inspector General be transferred to the Sheriff.
The proposed measure would allow the Mayor to hire deputy mayors.
The proposed measure would expand the Mayor's authority to hire certain department heads without board or commission involvement, and would authorize the Mayor to fire most department heads without board or commission involvement.
The proposed measure would authorize appointing authorities to remove their appointees to most boards and commissions without cause. The following boards and commissions would not be impacted by this change: Board of Appeals, Civil Service Commission, and Ethics Commission. Show more »
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO CIRCULATE INITIATIVE PETITION
Notice is hereby given by the person whose name appears hereon of their intention to circulate a petition within the City and County of San Francisco for the purpose of placing on the November 3, 2026 general election ballot a measure to reform how measures are placed on the ballot in San Francisco.
A statement of the reasons of the proposed action as contemplated in the petition is as follows:
The proposed measure reforms how measures are placed on the ballot in San Francisco to better align with the standards in other California cities. San Francisco's ballot qualification rules are far looser than those of any other major California city. The result is bloated and confusing ballots. In November 2024, voters faced 15 separate measures, compared to one in San Jose and three in Oakland.
Over the past 30 years, 74 percent of ordinances on the ballot were placed before voters by a minority of supervisors, the Mayor, or through signature drives rather than through a transparent and accountable legislative process. 44 percent did not legally require voter approval.
San Francisco is the only major city that allows a minority of supervisors to place measures directly on the ballot. It also has by far the lowest signature threshold in California—just 2 percent of registered voters. Additionally, it is the only city that allows the mayor to unliterally place measures on the ballot. Together, the status quo incentivizes special interests and politicians to weaponize the system against each other. Measures are often filled with complicated legal jargon meant to confuse voters. So-called poison pill ballot measures are more and more common, and measures can mislead voters or lead to unintended consequences. In 2022, for example, a ballot measure intended to tax Amazon was later discovered to unintentionally tax hundreds of small businesses and could only be removed through court action, despite conflicting with the drafters' intentions.
The proposed measure aligns San Francisco more closely with other California cities while preserving voters' ability to participate directly in lawmaking. These commonsense reforms encourage coalition-building, deliberation, and higher-quality measures for voters to consider while reducing confusion and unintended consequences.
_/s/________________
Daniel Lurie
Proponent of the Initiative
The city attorney has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure:
CHANGES TO BALLOT MEASURE PROCESS
The Way It Is Now
Under the City Charter, an ordinance or declaration of policy (measure) may be placed on the ballot in several ways, including:
• By a six-member majority vote of the Board of Supervisors (Board);
• By four or more members of the Board submitting the measure without a vote of the Board;
• By the Mayor submitting the measure without a vote of the Board; or
• By registered voters submitting an initiative petition to the Department of Elections (signature initiative) containing signatures of at least 2% of the registered voters in San Francisco, which currently is approximately 10,600 signatures.
A signature initiative generally appears on the ballot at the next regularly scheduled municipal or statewide election. Signature initiatives that propose an ordinance may call for an earlier election, known as a special election, if the petition contains signatures of voters equal in number to at least 10% of the votes cast for all candidates for Mayor in the last mayoral election. The threshold for a signature initiative to call a special election currently is approximately 39,000 signatures.
Once a signature initiative is submitted to the Department of Elections, it cannot be withdrawn.
The Proposal
The proposal would amend the Charter to eliminate the ability of the Mayor or four or more members of the Board to place a measure on the ballot without a vote of the Board. The Board could still place measures on the ballot by a six-member majority vote.
The proposal would change the way the voters may place a signature initiative on the ballot by increasing the required number of voter signatures to 8% of the registered voters in San Francisco, or approximately 42,500 signatures. The proposed measure would also increase the required number of voter signatures to call a special election on an initiative ordinance to 10% of the registered voters in San Francisco (instead of 10% of votes cast for all candidates for Mayor in the last mayoral election), or approximately 53,100 signatures.
The proposal would allow the proponents of a signature initiative to withdraw the signature initiative from the ballot up to 102 days before the election. Show more »
- Advertisement -