TAPIA vs CITY OF SACRAMENTO, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with

24CV013067: TAPIA vs CITY OF SACRAMENTO, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al. 02/18/2026 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 25

a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant City of Sacramento’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings of Plaintiff Omar Tapia’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

This is a personal injury action for injuries to a minor Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s form complaint, filed on June 28, 2024, alleges a single cause of action for premises liability, based on the assertion that Defendant negligently maintained, operated, and controlled a playground, thus failing “to provide a safe” situation and failing “to warn the general public of a dangerous situation.” (Compl., p.6.) On or around July 5, 2023, “Plaintiff was playing on a trampoline and/or a similar playground equipment. (Ibid.) “As he was jumping off said playground equipment, he fell causing him to sustain injuries.” (Ibid.)

Defendant now moves for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff’s complaint, on the grounds that the complaint fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action; and Defendant is immune pursuant to Government Code sections 831.7 and 835, and Civil Code section 846. Plaintiff opposes.

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s opposition was untimely filed on February 5, 2026. However, as Defendant has filed a substantive reply, the Court, in its discretion will consider Plaintiff’s opposition.

Legal Standard

A defense motion for judgment on the pleadings “is akin to a demurrer and is properly granted only if complaint does not state facts sufficient to state a cause of action against that defendant.” (Shea Homes Limited Partnership v. County of Alameda (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1254; see Code Civ. Proc. § 438(c)(1) (motion for judgment on the pleadings for failure to state a cause of action).) In adjudicating a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court treats the pleadings as admitted all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of law. (Schonfeldt v.

State of California (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1465.) If the motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted, leave to amend must be granted unless the defect cannot be cured by amendment. (Baughman v. State of California (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 182, 187.) If, as a matter of law, there is no possible liability, denial of leave to amend is

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013067: TAPIA vs CITY OF SACRAMENTO, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al. 02/18/2026 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 25

proper. (Schonfeldt, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 1465.)

In ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court will take judicial notice of records and may extend consideration to all matters that are subject of judicial notice. (Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604-605.) In doing so, the Court performs essentially the same task as ruling on a general demurrer. (Smiley v. Citibank (1995) 11 Cal.4th 138, 146.).

Discussion

Governmental Immunity

Defendant argues that it is immune from the instant action pursuant to Government Code sections 831.7 and 835, and Civil Code section 846. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant is not entitled to immunity under these sections.

Government Code section 831.7

Defendant argues Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege gross negligence sufficient to overcome immunity pursuant to Government Code section 831.7.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Section 831.7(c)(1) provides a statutory exception to the immunity provided therein where there was a failure of the public entity to guard or warn of a known dangerous condition or the injuries were caused by the public entity’s failure to properly construct or maintain in good repair the equipment utilized in the hazardous recreational activity.

California law imposes a higher pleading standard for statutory claims, requiring they be pleaded with particularity and show every fact essential to the existence of liability under the relevant statute. (Lopez v. Southern Cal. Rapid Trans. Dist. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 780, 795.)

Government Code section 831.7(a) provides:

Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable to any person who participates in a hazardous recreational activity, including any person who assists the participant, or to any spectator who knew or reasonably should have known that the hazardous recreational activity created a substantial risk of injury to himself or herself and was voluntarily in the place of risk, or having the ability to do so failed to leave, for any damage or injury to property or persons arising out of that hazardous recreational activity.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013067: TAPIA vs CITY OF SACRAMENTO, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al. 02/18/2026 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 25

(emphasis added.) Subsection 831.7 (b) defines “hazardous recreational activity” to mean “a recreational activity conducted on property of a public entity that creates a substantial, as distinguished from a minor, trivial, or insignificant, risk of injury to a participant.” Section 831.7 further enumerates certain activities that qualify as hazardous recreational activity, including “trampolining.”

Government Code section 831.7(c) further provides:

(c)(1) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), this section does not limit liability that would otherwise exist for any of the following:

(A) Failure of the public entity or employee to guard or warn of a known dangerous condition or of another hazardous recreational activity known to the public entity or employee that is not reasonably assumed by the participant as inherently a part of the hazardous recreational activity out of which the damage or injury arose.

(C) Injury suffered to the extent proximately caused by the negligent failure of the public entity or public employee to properly construct or maintain in good repair any structure, recreational equipment or machinery, or substantial work of improvement utilized in the hazardous recreational activity out of which the damage or injury arose.

(E) An act of gross negligence by a public entity or public employee that is the proximate cause of the injury.

(emphasis added.) Subsection (c)(1)(A) “establishes that the Legislature's aim was to withhold immunity if the public entity failed to warn or guard against a dangerous condition or hazardous activity that was not an inherent part of the activity specified in the statute. Thus, in determining whether a public entity is entitled to statutory immunity, a plaintiff's knowledge of any particular risks is irrelevant.” (Mubanda v. City of Santa Barbara (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 256, 263 (Mubanda) (quoting Perez v. City of Los Angeles (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1380, 1387 [33 Cal.Rptr.2d 55] (Perez).)

In Perez, the trial court sustained the defendant's demurrer without leave to amend where the plaintiff alleged that he fell and was injured while swinging from a rope hung from a tree on public property. (Perez, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1382–1383.) The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the city had no duty to guard or warn against the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013067: TAPIA vs CITY OF SACRAMENTO, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al. 02/18/2026 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 25

tree rope swinging since the plaintiff's injury had resulted from the risk of falling that was inherent in the hazardous recreational activity of tree rope swinging. (Id. at pp. 1383– 1384.) Perez also explained that “if a person were to swing from a rope and jump into a body of water where, to the rope swinger's surprise, there were, for example, dangerous piranhas or crocodiles whose presence was known by the public entity, liability could be premised on the public entity's failure ‘to guard or warn of a known dangerous condition ... .’ ” (Ibid.) Similarly, in Mubanda, the Court of Appeal held that the “risk of falling off a standup paddleboard and drowning in a harbor is inherent in that type of hazardous recreational activity.” (Mubanda, supra, 74 Cal.App.5th at p. 264.)

Here, Plaintiff’s cause of action, as currently pled, alleges that Plaintiff sustained injuries when he fell after jumping off a trampoline. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that

Defendants negligently, recklessly and/or wantonly owned, maintained, managed, operated, controlled and safeguarded the premises and/or playground at or near 1990 Roma Ct, Sacramento, CA 95833, such that employees and/or staff failed to provide a safe and failed to warn the general public of a dangerous situation. Defendants failed to properly train their employees and/or supervise their staff and failed to barricade the area and/or to warn of the dangerous condition, rendering the area on said premises dangerous and resulting in serious bodily injury to the Plaintiff.”

(Compl., p. 6.)

Falling while jumping off a trampoline is a risk reasonably assumed by a participant that is inherent in the hazardous recreational activity of trampolining. Plaintiff’s complaint, as currently pled does not allege that there were additional conditions that caused the injury or for which Defendant failed to warn. Plaintiff also does not allege specific facts that Defendant failed to properly construct or maintain the equipment that caused the injury.

As currently pled, the allegations of Plaintiff’s complaint fall under the immunity created by Government Code section 831.7. Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is therefore GRANTED with leave to amend.

Government Code section 835

Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for premises liability. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff must allege actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition with sufficient time to remedy it, supported by specific facts. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that he is not required to prove his case at the pleading state, “only to allege facts which, if proven, would

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013067: TAPIA vs CITY OF SACRAMENTO, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al. 02/18/2026 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 25

establish that the City’s acts or omissions created or failed to remedy a dangerous condition with sufficient notice and opportunity to address it.” (Opp., p. 5:9-11.)

Government Code Section 835 sets out the exclusive framework under which a public entity can be held liable for injuries caused by a condition of its property. (Metcalf v. County of San Joaquin (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1121, 1129.) Under Government Code section 835 public entities such as Defendant may be liable on a claim for “dangerous condition of public property” if the subject property was in a “dangerous condition” at the time of the injury, the injury was proximately caused by the “dangerous condition,” the “dangerous condition” created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the “dangerous condition” a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken remedial action. (See Tansavatdi v.

City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 639, 647 [“Under the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code § 810 et seq.), a public entity can be held liable for either creating a dangerous condition on its property or failing to protect against such a condition when the entity had notice of the danger and sufficient time to remedy the situation.”].)

Importantly, Government Code section 830(a) defines “dangerous condition” as “a condition of property that creates a substantial (as distinguished from a minor, trivial or insignificant) risk of injury when such property or adjacent property is used with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used.” Through Government Code section 831.7, discussed above, “[t]he Legislature obviously intended to shield public entities from liability claims arising from hazardous recreational activities, without unduly restricting the use of public lands for such purposes.” (Devito v. State of California (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 264, 271 [affirming the trial court’s sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend on a premises liability claim under section 835 based on the immunity set forth in section 831.7].)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged facts—beyond those inherent in the hazardous activity of trampolining—showing either the existence of a dangerous condition giving rise to a cause of action under Government Code section 835 or that Defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of that dangerous condition. As such, Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts of a dangerous condition or notice to Defendant. (See Lopez, supra, 40 Cal.3d at p. 795.) While Plaintiff is correct that he is not required to prove his case at the pleading stage, however he is required to set forth specific facts in support of his claims, which he has not done here. (See Compl., p. 6.)

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED, with leave to amend.

Gross Negligence

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013067: TAPIA vs CITY OF SACRAMENTO, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al. 02/18/2026 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 25

Defendant argues that in order to overcome immunity under Government Code section 835, Plaintiff must plead specific fact to demonstrate gross negligence. In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that the Complaint “details the City’s failure to supervise and train employees, failure to provide adequate warnings or barricades, and failure to address known dangers at the playground and trampoline area.” (Opp’n at 7:9-10.)

“Gross negligence” long has been defined in California and other jurisdictions as either a “want of even scant care” or “an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.” (City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 747, 754.)

As explained in more detail above, Plaintiff is required to show every fact essential to the existence of liability. The complaint does not set forth specific facts showing the existence of a dangerous condition, that Defendant’s failure to warn or otherwise protect against such a condition, or why/how Defendant should have trained or supervised its employees in a different manner to prevent the injury alleged in this case. The complaint relies entirely on conclusory allegations to set forth Plaintiff’s claim.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not sufficiently pled the requisite facts. Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED, with leave to amend.

Disposition

For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED, with leave to amend.

Plaintiff may file and serve an amended complaint no later than March 4, 2025. Although not required by statute or court rule, Plaintiff is directed to present the clerk a copy of this ruling at the time of filing the First Amended Complaint. Defendant may file and serve a response within 30 days of service of the First Amended Complaint, 35 days if served by mail.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.