Defendant State of California Department of Parks & Recreation's Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint
On April 28, 2025, Plaintiff Irene B. Kopel, as trustee of the Irene B. Kopel 1993 Trust u/d/t dated November 23, 1993 (Kopel), filed the original complaint in this construction defect action against Defendant Lynch Construction, Inc. (Lynch).
On June 30, 2025, Lynch filed its answer to the complaint, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 38 affirmative defenses. Lynch concurrently filed a cross-complaint (Lynch Cross-Complaint) for indemnity and negligence against cross-Defendants Southwest Door & Window of California, Inc. (Southwest Door), Lewis Plumbing Inc. (Lewis Plumbing), Anguiano Bros. Corporation (Anguiano Bros.), Pat Thomas Drywall (Thomas Drywall), Quality Plastering, Inc (Quality Plastering), Ironcad Ltd. (Ironcad), Ilenstine Tile, Inc. (Ilenstine Tile), Custom Paver Pros Inc. (Custom Paver), Santa Barbara Surfacing, Inc. (SB Surfacing), and Besand Group (Besand).
On August 15, 2025, Ironcad filed its answer to the Lynch Cross-Complaint, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 26 affirmative defenses.
On August 27, 2025, the Court designated this matter as complex.
On September 10, 2025, Besand filed its answer to the Lynch Cross-Complaint, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 21 affirmative defenses. Besand concurrently filed a cross-complaint against fictitiously named cross-Defendants for indemnity.
On September 17, 2025, Quality Plastering filed its answer the Lynch Cross-Complaint, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 30 affirmative defenses.
On September 19, 2025, Anguiano Bros. filed its answer the Lynch Cross-Complaint, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 25 affirmative defenses.
On September 24, 2025, Ilenstine Tile filed its answer the Lynch Cross-Complaint, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 19 affirmative defenses.
On October 7, 2025, Thomas Drywall filed its answer the Lynch Cross-Complaint, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 37 affirmative defenses.
On October 19, 2025, SB Surfacing filed its answer the Lynch Cross-Complaint, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 39 affirmative defenses.
On December 15, 2025, the Court entered a joint complex case management order.
On January 12, 2026, Lynch filed its amendment to the Lynch Cross-Complaint identifying as Defendants Roe 1 through 7 as, respectively, Challenge Asphalt, Inc. (Challenge Asphalt), Custom Hardscapes, Inc. (Custom Hardscapes), Jon Rose Construction, Inc. (Rose Construction), Lazcano Masonry & Concrete, Inc. (Lazcano Masonry), Loewen, Pacific Stoneworks, Inc. (Pacific Stoneworks), and Pappa's Plastering & Drywall, Inc. (Pappa's Plastering).
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 March 17, 2026, Lynch filed its motion for leave to file a first amended cross-complaint to add two cross-Defendants and to add a new cause of action for professional negligence against those cross-Defendants.
On April 7, 2026, Kopel filed three "Doe" amendments to the complaint, identifying Anguiano Bros, Custom Hardscapes, and Quality Plastering as Does 1 through 3, respectively.
On April 13, 2026, Custom Hardscapes filed its answer to the Lynch Cross-Complaint, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 19 affirmative defenses. Custom Hardscapes concurrently filed a cross-complaint (Custom Hardscapes Cross-Complaint) for indemnity against Lynch and each of the other Lynch Cross-Complaint Cross-Defendants.
On April 21, 2026, Anguiano Bros filed its answer to the complaint, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 19 affirmative defenses.
On April 29, 2026, Kopel filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint to add specific charging allegations against five Doe Defendants and to add and clarify factual allegations regarding the construction defects. Also on April 29, Kopel filed two "Doe" amendments to the complaint identifying Rose Construction and Lazcano Masonry as Does 4 and 5, respectively.
On May 1, 2026, Quality Plastering filed its answer to the Custom Hardscapes Cross-Complaint, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 17 affirmative defenses.
On May 11, 2026, Custom Hardscapes filed its answer the complaint, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 13 affirmative defenses. Also on May 11, Quality Plastering filed its answer to the complaint, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 27 affirmative defenses. Quality Plastering concurrently filed a cross-complaint (Quality Plastering Cross-Complaint) against Anguiano Bros, Ironcad, Ilenstine Tile, and SB Surfacing. Also on May 11, Lynch Construction requested, and the Court entered, default on the Lynch Cross-Complaint as to Rose Construction, Lazcano Masonry, and Pappa's Plastering.
On May 12, 2026, Lynch filed its answer to the Custom Hardscapes Cross-Complaint, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 37 affirmative defenses. Also on May 12, SB Surfacing filed its answer to the Custom Hardscapes Cross-Complaint, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 39 affirmative defenses.
On May 13, 2026, Lynch filed its response and non-opposition to Kopel's motion for leave to file a FAC. Lynch notes that the expansion of the alleged defects as stated in the proposed FAC warrants a continuance of deadlines and trial. No opposition and no other responses have been filed to either motion for leave to amend.
On May 18, 2026, SB Surfacing filed its answer to the Quality Plastering Cross-Complaint, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 39 affirmative defenses.
Analysis
" 'The Court may, in furtherance of justice and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading....' [Citation.] However, the Court's discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. [Citations.] The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified." (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.)
Both motions for leave to file amended pleadings are unopposed and there is no showing of prejudice in granting the motions. The motions will be granted. Any issues regarding trial or other dates will be addressed at a case management conference or by noticed motion.
Tentative Ruling: Matthew Stahl v. State of California Department of Parks & Recreation
Tentative Ruling: Matthew Stahl v. State of California Department of Parks & Recreation
Case Number
Case Type Civil Law & Motion
Hearing Date / Time Wed, 06/03/2026 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings Defendant State of California Department of Parks & Recreation's Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint
Tentative Ruling
For Plaintiff Matthew Stahl: F. Javier Trujillo, Andrew Echavarria, Law Office of F. Javier Trujillo Inc.
For Defendant State of California by and through the Department of Parks & Recreation: Quintin Lucas, Victoria Nelson, California Attorney General's Office
RULING
For the reasons set forth below, the demurrer to Plaintiff's first amended complaint is sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file his second amended complaint, if any, no later than June 17, 2026.
Background
This action commenced on June 10, 2025, by the filing of the original complaint by Plaintiff Matthew Stahl against Defendants State of California, County of Santa Barbara, and City of Goleta.
On February 4, 2026, Plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint ("FAC") against State of California for dangerous condition of public property. Plaintiff alleges that on September 9, 2024, he was a business invitee of Defendant at El Capitan State Beach Park when he was injured as the result of walking to the beach on an unsafe walkway. Defendant, State of California by and through the Department of Parks & Recreation (the "State") argues that it is immune from liability pursuant to Government Code section 831.4 and demurs to the FAC. Plaintiff opposes the demurrer.
Analysis
Demurrer
"When any ground for objection to a complaint, cross-complaint, or answer appears on the face thereof, or from any matter of which the Court is required to or may take judicial notice, the objection on that ground may be taken by a demurrer to the pleading." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 430.30, subd. (a).)
"Our consideration of the facts alleged includes 'those evidentiary facts found in recitals of exhibits attached to [the] complaint.' [Citation.]" (Alexander v. Exxon Mobil (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1236, 1250.)
"The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds: "(a) The Court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading. "(b) The person who filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to sue. "(c) There is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action. "(d) There is a defect or misjoinder of parties. "(e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. "(f) The pleading is uncertain.
As used in this subdivision, "uncertain" includes ambiguous and unintelligible. "(g) In an action founded upon a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct. "(h) No certificate was filed as required by Section 411.35." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 430.10.)
"[A] Court must treat a demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, it does not, however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law." (Travelers Indem. Co. of Connecticut v. Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 341, 358, citing Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)
"To survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the Plaintiff's proof need not be alleged." (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.)
Trail Immunity
" ' "A public entity is generally liable for an injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the Plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury and the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition." ' " [Citation.]
However, the recreational trail immunity statute, [Government Code] section 831.4, provides that a public entity " 'is not liable for an injury caused by a condition of' " the following: " '(a) Any unpaved road which provides access to fishing, hunting, camping, hiking, riding, including animal and all types of vehicular riding, water sports, recreational or scenic areas' "; or " '(b) Any trail used for the above purposes.' " (Sec. 831.4, subds. (a) & (b).)
" '[S]ubdivisions (a) and (b) should be read together such that immunity attaches to trails providing access to recreational activities as well as to trails on which those recreational activities take place.' " [Citation.]" (Helm v. City of Los Angeles (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1219, 1226 (Helm).)
" ' "The plainly stated purpose of immunity for recreational activities on public land is to encourage public entities to open their property for public recreational use, because ' "the burden and expense of putting such property in a safe condition and the expense of defending claims for injuries would probably cause many public entities to close such areas to public use." ' " ' " [Citation.]
" 'Trail immunity applies to all manner of defects in the trail's