Polanco v. City of Fowler

But in granting leave to amend the court is guided by the principle that if in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the court concludes the complaint is insufficient as a matter of law, it “may elect to treat the hearing of a summary judgment motion as a motion for judgment on the pleadings and grant the opposing party an opportunity to file an amended complaint to correct the defect.” (Hobson v. Raychem Corp. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 614, 625, disapproved on other grounds by Colmenares v. Braemar Country Club, Inc. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1019, 1031 fn. 6.) This is what the court intends to do now.

The City contends that the court should not allow the amendment because it would exceed the scope of the government claim previously submitted to the City.

Plaintiff’s government claim spoke “only of the nonfunctioning crosswalk lights,” not the additional factors plaintiff attempted to present in opposition.

Ordinarily, the judge will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in deciding whether to grant leave to amend. Grounds for demurrer or motion to strike are premature. After leave to amend is granted, the opposing party will have the opportunity to attack the validity of the amended pleading. (See Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048; Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 760 [“the better course of action would have been to allow [plaintiff] to amend the complaint and then let the parties test its legal sufficiency in other appropriate proceedings”].)

However, the court does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action. (See California Cas. Gen. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280-281, disapproved on other grounds by Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390, 407, fn. 11.) Such denial is “most appropriate” where the pleading is deficient as a matter of law and the defect could not be cured by further appropriate amendment. (California Cas.

Gen. Ins. Co., supra, 173 Cal.App.3d at p. 281.)

"[A] plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating or excusing compliance with the claim presentation requirement." (State of California v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1243.) "Otherwise, his complaint is subject to a general demurrer for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action." (Ibid.) Under Government Code section 945.4, “no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity ... until a written claim therefore has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the Board, or has been deemed to be have been denied by the Board.”

“[T]the factual circumstances set forth in the written claim must correspond with the facts alleged in the complaint; even if the claim were timely, the complaint is vulnerable to a demurrer if it alleges a factual basis for recovery which is not fairly reflected in the written claim.” (Nelson v. State (1982) 139 Cal.App.3d 72, 79.)

The proposed First Amended Complaint does not allege a different accident, a different public entity, or a different cause of action. Rather, it clarifies the factual basis for the same dangerous-condition claim arising from the May 25, 2023, pedestrian collision at the school-crossing location. The claim need not specify each particular act or omission later proven to have caused the injury. Where the complaint merely elaborates or adds further detail to a claim, but is predicated on the same fundamental actions or failures to act by the defendants, courts have generally found the claim fairly reflects the facts pled in the complaint. (Stockett v. Association of Cal. Water Agencies Joint Powers Ins. Authority (2004) 34 Cal.4th 441, 447.) The court finds that such is the case here.

In granting plaintiff leave to file a motion for leave to amend, the court indicated that conditions may be set, such as requiring plaintiff to compensate the City for the cost of preparing and filing this motion for summary judgment. (See Cal. Practice Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (TRG 2025) 11 6: 639.5.) Though the court invited the parties to address this issue in the motion to amend papers, Plaintiff does not address this issue in the moving papers. Likewise, the City requests that plaintiff compensate the city for the costs of preparing and filing the motion for summary judgment, “to be addressed by later 4

declaration.” It is unclear why the City does not present that information now. Accordingly, there is no basis to impose a monetary condition at this time.

The court notes that in its opposition the City incorrectly contends that the motion was not timely filed within the time permitted by the court in the February 11, 2026 minute order. The City’s calculation of the filing deadline fails to account for the two court days added for electronic service of the order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (a)(4)(B).) The motion was timely filed.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling

Issued By: SMC on 6/15/26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

5