PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8C, located at the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse located at 500 G. Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail message (a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; (b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and (c) confirming that they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16039062174

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

25CV030478: MAGEE vs MUTUAL HOUSINF, et al. 07/08/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 8C

(833) 568-8864

ID: 16039062174

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Other rulings by Richard C. Miadich Judge Richard C. Miadich dossier Other Demurrer in SACRAMENTO All SACRAMENTO County rulings Other Property Damage / Negligence cases

Related rulings

by semantic similarity

Source

Print-friendly view

. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf

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 Courts 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 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 be forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION****

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV030478: MAGEE vs MUTUAL HOUSINF, et al. 07/08/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 8C

Defendant Sunseri Construction, Inc.s (Sunseri) demurrer to Plaintiff in pro per Janet Magees (Magee) complaint is UNOPPOSED and SUSTAINED.

Magee alleges that earth moving equipment operated on behalf of Sunseri and co- Defendant Mutual Housing damaged her residence as a result of impacting dirt on October 10, 2022. (Magee Decl. attached to Complaint.) Magee used Judicial Council Pleading Form PLD-C-001(2) Cause of Action-Common Counts. The Complaint is date stamped as filed on December 10, 2025, three years and two months after the alleged damage.

Sunseri demurs to Magees Complaint on the grounds that her claims are barred by any applicable statute of limitations.

No opposition was filed to this motion. A partys failure to oppose a motion is construed as a concession on the merits of the motion. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4.)

However, even if Plaintiff had filed an opposition, it most likely would not have changed the outcome. Plaintiff used the Common Counts pleading form and checked a box for a four-year cause of action. But the factual allegations in a complaint, not the form, determine whether a complaint states a cause of action. (People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Super. Ct. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1480, 1484.)

A common count is a cause of action based on express or implied promises to pay money. (Moya v. Northrup (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 276, 281.) Magee alleges property damage as a result of construction equipment or activities operated near her residence. Magee does not allege any transactional relationship between the parties, such as services provided, goods sold, or money lent. (See Judicial Council Form, form PLD-C- 001(2) [listing common counts].) Even liberally construing the allegations and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of upholding the complaint, as required on demurrer, Magees allegations do not state a cause of action for one of the common counts.

Instead, Magees allegations appear to be intended to state a cause of action for negligence or negligent or reckless trespass or injury to real property. (Leslie G. v. Perry

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV030478: MAGEE vs MUTUAL HOUSINF, et al. 07/08/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 8C

& Associates (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 472, 480 [elements of negligence]; Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Victory Consultants, Inc. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 245, 261262 [elements of trespass].) The limitations period for an ordinary negligence claim is two years. (Code Civ. Proc., § 335.1; So v. Shin (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 652, 662.) The limitations period for trespass or injury to real property is three years. (Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. (b); Cobb v. City of Stockton (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 65, 70.)

A limitations period begins to run when the cause of action accrues, generally meaning that all the elements of the cause of action are complete and the injured party discovers or should have discovered the cause of action. (Choi v. Sagemark Consulting (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 308, 323.) Magee alleges that she was aware of the damage and the cause of the damage on October 10, 2022. (Magee Decl.) Magee complained to Defendants about the damage at the time of the event. (Id.) The Court finds that the limitations period began to run on October 10, 2022.

Magee had at most until October 10, 2025, to commence her action. In fact, Magee attached to her Complaint a letter apparently from co-Defendant Mutual Housings insurer advising her that Should you wish to pursue the claim, please be advised that the Statute of Limitations for bringing legal action against our insured will expire 10/10/2025. (Compl., Exh. C.)

An action is commenced for purposes of the statute of limitations by filing a complaint with the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 350.) The Declaration attached to Magees Complaint is dated October 10, 2025, and an attached proof of service declares hand service of the Complaint on the Court on October 10, 2025. However, both the Courts Register of Actions and the date stamp on the Complaint give a filing date of December 10, 2025, the first entry in the Register. An action is commenced when the complaint is filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 350.) The Court finds that the Complaint was not timely filed and is barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.

Accordingly, Sunseris demurrer to the complaint is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. There does not appear to be any basis for Magee to bring her claims. A court properly denies amendment that would be futile as a matter of law. (Faigin v. Signature Group Holdings, Inc. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 726, 736.)

This minute order is effective immediately. Sunseri shall submit a formal order and judgment of dismissal for the Courts signature pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV030478: MAGEE vs MUTUAL HOUSINF, et al. 07/08/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 8C