by Defendant City of Fresno Demurring to the Second Amended Complaint
(20) Tentative Ruling
Re: Estupinian, et al. v. City of Fresno, et al. Superior Court Case No. 24CECG03913
Hearing Date: May 6, 2026 (Dept. 503)
Motion: by Defendant City of Fresno Demurring to the Second Amended Complaint
Tentative Ruling:
To sustain the demurrer, without leave to amend. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) Within seven days of service of the order by the clerk, The City of Fresno (the “City”) shall submit to the court a proposed judgment dismissing the action.
Explanation:
Defendant City demurs to the Second Amended Complaint for failure to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)
“[A] public entity is liable for 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, that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, [and] that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred. . . .” (Gov. Code, § 835.)
“A ‘dangerous condition’ is defined as ‘a condition of property that creates a substantial ... risk of injury when such property or adjacent property is used with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used.’ [Citation.] The existence of a dangerous condition is usually a question of fact, but may be resolved as a question of law if reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion. [Citations.]” (Chowdhury v. City of Los Angeles (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1187, 1194, citations omitted.)
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?”
Here, plaintiffs allege that at the time of the collision, the traffic signals were malfunctioning such that the southbound signal was flashing red while the eastbound signal was completely dark, creating confusion and a hazardous condition for motorists. 4
(SAC ¶¶ 45-46.) This malfunction created a trap for motorists, that the condition foreseeably resulted in collisions, and that the City failed to implement temporary traffic control measures or otherwise protect the public despite having notice and the ability to do so. (SAC ¶¶ 47-5 l.)
As noted above, liability for a malfunctioning traffic signal arises only where the malfunction confuses or misleads motorists and causes an accident. (Chowdhury, supra, 38 Cal.App.4th at p. 1195.) Plaintiffs’ assertions of confusion and trap for motorists are conclusions, rather than facts. The Vehicle Code addresses how motorists are to treat nonfunctioning traffic signals. Under Vehicle Code sections 21457 and 21800, motorists are required to treat the flashing red signal and the “dark” signal as stop signs by stopping and proceeding only when it is safe to do so.
The fact that two signals in the intersection were inoperable in these two ways does not cause confusion. A motorist approaching a light that is flashing must treat the signal as a stop sign, as must a motorist approaching from another direction and encountering a dark signal. Accordingly, the City’s demurrer is sustained. Leave to amend is not granted because plaintiffs have already twice amended the complaint, and make no showing how this deficiency in the pleading can be cured with further amendment.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Tentative Ruling
Issued By: JS on 5/4/2026. (Judge’s initials) (Date)
5