LOZANO VS. COUNTY OF SHASTA

CASE NUMBER: 26CV-0210630 Tentative Ruling on Demurrer: Defendant, County of Shasta, demurs to the Complaint filed on May 11, 2026, by Plaintiff Ryan Lozano. Plaintiff has not opposed the demurrer.

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on July 1, 2026. Generally, this would cause the demurrer to be moot; however, the First Amended Complaint was not signed by Plaintiff. Due to Plaintiff’s failure to sign the amended complaint, the Court orders the First Amended Complaint filed on July 1, 2026, STRICKEN.

Meet and Confer. CCP § 430.41 requires the demurring party to “meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” The Declaration of Renee Belcastro indicates that Defendant attempted to call Plaintiff to meet and confer but was unsuccessful. Defendant subsequently emailed with Plaintiff, and Plaintiff provided a new phone number where he could be reached. There is no indication that Defendant attempted to call Plaintiff at his new number to meet and confer on the demurrer. This is insufficient. The parties are reminded of their obligation to meet and confer in compliance with CCP § 430.41.

Merits. A demurrer can be used to challenge defects that appear on the face of the complaint or from matters that may be subject to judicial notice. Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 311, 318. A demurrer should be sustained if the complaint fails to “state facts sufficient to constitute a valid 4

cause of action” or if the complaint is uncertain. CCP § 430.10(e)-(f). The Court “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.”