Motion to Strike; Demurrer
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 12 Honorable Nahal Iravani-Sani, Presiding Courtroom Clerk, Ryan Nguyen 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2230
DATE: 06/24/2026 TIME: 9:00 and 9:01 A.M.
LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 24CV428612 Plaza Services, LLC vs Motion: Set Aside Default/Judgment George Berry Please Ctrl Click on (or scroll down to) Line 1
LINE 2 24CV434201 Balbinder Kaur vs Motion: Attorneys Fees & Costs General Motors, LLC LINES 3-4 25CV456689 Richard Chamberlain vs Hearing: Motion to Strike Santa Clara Public Hearing: Demurrer Defender’s Office et al Please Ctrl Click on (or scroll down to) Line 3 LINES 5-6 25CV460503 Roy Toledo vs D.H. Motion: Sanctions & Protective Order Smith Company, Inc. Please Ctrl Click on (or scroll down to) Line 5 LINE 7 25CV471073 John Doe L.M., an Motion: Compel individual, vs Craig Chandler et al Please Ctrl Click on (or scroll down to Line 7) LINES 8 25CV478936 Ari Lazier vs Walnut Hearing: Petition Compel Creek Ford et al Arbitration
Please scroll down to Line 8
9:01 CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 25CV468267 Mercy Falls, LLC vs Motion: Withdraw as attorney United Security Specialists, Inc. et al Notice is proper. No opposition received. Attorney Jacqueline Simonovich’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Mercy Falls LLC is GRANTED.
Movant to e-file Form MC-053 within 2 days of the hearing. Movant shall give notice to Plaintiff within 2 days of the date of the hearing, including the following: Plaintiff must appear at the Further Case Management Conference (to be scheduled) in Department 12. * Counsel to appear for scheduling*
Calendar Line 3-4 Case Name: Richard Chamberlain v. Santa Clara Public Defender’s Office, et al. Case No.: 25-CV-456689
Factual and Procedural Background
This is an action for excessive force, unlawful detention, and related claims brought by plaintiff Richard Chamberlain (“Plaintiff”), a self-represented litigant, against the Santa Clara Public Defender’s Office, Santa Clara District Attorney’s Office, and Campbell Police Department (“CPD”) (collectively, “Defendants”).
On October 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants alleging causes of action for:
(1) Excessive Force; (2) Unlawful Detention; (3) Negligence; (4) Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; and (5) Civil Rights Violations (42 U.S.C. § 1983
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
On December 2, 2025, defendant City of Campell (erroneously sued as CPD) (“City”) filed the motions presently before the court, a demurrer and motion to strike to the FAC. Plaintiff filed written oppositions. The City filed reply papers.
A further case management conference is also scheduled for August 19, 2026.
Self-Represented Litigants
Self-represented litigants “are held to the same standards as attorneys.” (Kobayashi v. Super. Ct. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 543; see also Burnete v. La Casa Dana Apartments (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1270 [“self-represented litigants are generally entitled to no special treatment”].) “[M]ere self-representation is not a ground for exceptionally lenient treatment.” (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984.) Otherwise, “exceptional treatment of parties who represent themselves would lead to a quagmire in the trial courts, and would be unfair to the other parties to litigation.” (Id. at p. 985.)
Demurrer to the FAC
The City raises the following arguments in support of the demurrer to the FAC: (1) Plaintiff did not comply with the claim presentation requirement in the Government Tort Claims Act and thus his state tort claims are time-barred; (2) the FAC fails to allege a statutory basis for his claims against the City; (3) the FAC fails to state any valid cause of action; (4) the FAC is uncertain; and (5) the City, a public entity, is immune from suit for acts alleged in the FAC. In opposition, Plaintiff essentially concedes the defects raised on demurrer as he has offered to file a second amended complaint (“SAC”) with the court. (See OPP at Ex. 1.)
Thus, the court treats the opposition as a concession that the instant demurrer has merit and is therefore sustainable for reasons outlined by the City. As this is the first challenge to the pleadings, the court will provide Plaintiff an opportunity for leave to amend. (See City of Stockton v. Super. Ct. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 730, 747 [if the plaintiff has not had an opportunity to amend the
pleading in response to a motion challenging the sufficiency of the allegations, leave to amend is liberally allowed as a matter of fairness, unless the pleading shows on its face that it is incapable of amendment].) Should the City take issue with Plaintiff’s SAC, it may file the appropriate pleading motion for demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings (after the filing of an answer), or dispositive motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication based on admissible evidence.
Consequently, the demurrer to the FAC is SUSTAINED in its entirety WITH 15 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND.
Motion to Strike Prayer for Punitive Damages
Given the court’s ruling on demurrer, the motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages is MOOT.
Disposition
The demurrer to the FAC is SUSTAINED in its entirety WITH 15 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND.
The motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages is MOOT.
The December 9, 2026 hearing date on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a SAC is hereby VACATED.
The court will prepare the Order.
- oo0oo -