WILLIAMS vs CAL-TRANS DISTRICT # 4, et al.

2. Demurrer to Second and Third Causes of Action 23CV045714: WILLIAMS vs CAL-TRANS DISTRICT # 4, et al. 07/07/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other RE: Defendant Caltrans’ Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint; filed by California Department of Transportation (Defendant) CRS# A-45714-002 in Department 512

To state a cause of action against a public entity “every fact essential to the existence of statutory liability must be pleaded with particularity, including the existence of a statutory duty. Since the duty of a governmental agency can only be created by statute or ‘enactment,’ the statute or ‘enactment’ claimed to establish the duty must at the very least be identified.” (County of Los Angeles v. Sup.Ct. (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 160, 178, citing Searcy v. Hemet Unified School Dist. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 792, 802.)

Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action cites to Government Code §§ 810.8, 815.2, 815.6, 830, 835, 835.2, 845.8 and all of § 810-996.9. This Cause of Action also cites to Vehicle Code § 17001 and Civil Code 3282.

The citation to all of Gov’t Code §§ 810-996.9 is insufficiently specific pursuant to County of Los Angeles and Searcy, supra. None of Gov’t Code §§ 810.8, 830 or 845.8 create liability for Defendant or create liability under the facts alleged in the SAC.

Vehicle Code § 17001 does not create liability for Defendant under the facts alleged in the SAC; the SAC does not allege that any agent of Cal-Trans was operating a motor vehicle in connection with the damage to Plaintiff’s car. Civil Code § 3282 states a general principal of law; it does not create liability on the part of Cal-Trans.

§ 815.2 provides that a public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of any employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment, if apart from this statute, the employee would be liable for the injury. However, the SAC does not allege with required particularity the identity of any employee or agent whose negligence responsible for the damage to Plaintiff’s vehicle, nor does the SAC allege any facts that or statutes pursuant to which a Cal-Trans employee or agent would be personally liable for failure to repair freeway potholes.

§ 815.6 provides that a public entity is liable for injury where the public entity has a mandatory duty created by a statute designed to protect against the risk of a particular kind of injury and the injury is caused by the public entities failure to perform that mandatory duty. However, the SAC does not properly cite to any statute that creates a mandatory duty to prevent the kind of injury Plaintiff alleges he suffered, specifically, damage to his vehicle by a pothole.

Gov’t Code §§ 835 and 835.2, regarding liability for the dangerous condition of Cal-Trans’ property and Cal-Trans’ notice of that dangerous condition, could be a basis for a cause of action against Defendant. However, Defendant correctly points out that the Second Cause of Action does not plead all the specific facts necessary to plead a cause of action under § 835.

Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action cites to Government Code §§ 815.2, 816.6 (apparently meaning 815.6), 835 and CCP § 394. CCP § 394 does not provide a right of action against Defendant, and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

23CV045714: WILLIAMS vs CAL-TRANS DISTRICT # 4, et al. 07/07/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other RE: Defendant Caltrans’ Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint; filed by California Department of Transportation (Defendant) CRS# A-45714-002 in Department 512 Plaintiff alleges the same Government Code provisions as the basis for his Second Cause of Action.

Nevertheless, it is at least possible that Plaintiff could amend his Second Cause of Action to allege a viable claim under Gov’t Code §§ 815.2, 815.6 and/or 835 and 835.2 and also that he has damages above the Court’s jurisdictional minimum.

Wherefore, the Court SUSTAINS Defendant’s Demurrer to the Second Cause of Action WITH LEAVE TO AMEND to state a Cause of Action pursuant to Gov’t Code § 815.2.

The Court also GRANTS Plaintiff LEAVE to allege a separate Cause of Action pursuant to Gov’t Code § 815.6. Thus, Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint may allege as its first two Causes of Action claims under each of §§ 815.2 and 815.6.

Wherefore, the Court SUSTAINS Defendant’s Demurrer to the Third Cause of Action WITH LEAVE TO AMEND to state a Cause of Action pursuant to Gov’t Code §§ 835 and 835.2.

The Court will not grant Plaintiff any further opportunity to amend his pleading. Therefore, the Court again recommends that Plaintiff seek the advice of counsel.

If Defendants have not done so already, Defendants are encouraged to obtain the advice of licensed counsel (including, e.g., through the Alameda County Bar Association’s attorney referral service (https://www.acbanet.org/need-a-lawyer/ or (510) 302-2222)); access online selfhelp guides and tools at the California Courts Self Help website (https://selfhelp.courts.ca.gov/civil-lawsuit); and/or to seek assistance at the County Law Library (https://lawlibrary.acgov.org).

Legal Access Alameda also holds the Community Legal Assistance Saturday Program on the FIRST Saturday of each month. Callers may leave a message from 10 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. at (510) 485-9933, with return phone consultations occurring later that day. More information is available at legalaccess.org or (510) 302-2222.

ANALYSIS OF MOTION TO STRIKE

Defendant’s Notice of Motion fails to properly identify by page and line number the matter it is requesting be stricken. To the extent that Defendant seeks to strike the matter at Attachment pp. 7:10-8-4 commencing with “CONCLUSION SUMMARY, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Strike WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. This matter does not belong in a properly pleaded complaint.

CONTESTING TENTATIVE RULINGS

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

23CV045714: WILLIAMS vs CAL-TRANS DISTRICT # 4, et al. 07/07/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other RE: Defendant Caltrans’ Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint; filed by California Department of Transportation (Defendant) CRS# A-45714-002 in Department 512 PLEASE NOTE: If any party contests the tentative ruling, the hearing on the motion will occur remotely via the court's own video-conferencing system.

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, subdivision (a)(1), this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court unless it is contested before 4:00 PM on the court day preceding the noticed hearing date.

To contest a tentative ruling, a party should do the following:

First, the party must notify Department 512, by email at Dept512@alameda.courts.ca.gov and copy all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The contesting party must state in the subject line of the email the case name, case number and motion.

Second, the party shall log into the eCourt Public Portal, search for this case (e.g., by case number), select the case name, select the "Tentative Rulings" tab, click the "Click to Contest this Ruling" button, enter the party's name and a brief statement of the party's reason for contesting the tentative, and click "Proceed."

Parties may appear via videoconference, using the Zoom.com website or application.

TO CONNECT TO ZOOM:

Join the meeting using the following link: https://www.zoomgov.com/j/16057661931 Join the meeting by Phone:

Meeting ID: 160 5766 1931

1 669 254 5252, 16057661931# US (San Jose) 1 669 216 1590, 16057661931# US (San Jose) 833 568 8864 US Toll-free