DEFENDANTS ANGEL SANCHEZ, JERMAINE DAVIS, OSCAR SANCHEZ, AND FLORES- GARCIA’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
July 28, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 18 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________
2:00 PM LINE 7 25-CIV-00216 ANTHONY DASHON THORTON VS. #2131 ANGEL SANCHEZ, ET AL.
ANTHONY DASHON THORTON PRO SE #2131 ANGEL SANCHEZ JOANNE TRAN
DEFENDANTS ANGEL SANCHEZ, JERMAINE DAVIS, OSCAR SANCHEZ, AND FLORES- GARCIA’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendants’ unopposed Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (FAC) is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e) and Government Code sections 945.4, 950.2, as follows:
This action pertains to an alleged December 7, 2024 incident during which Plaintiff Anthony Dashon Thornton alleges that he was handcuffed in his residence, taken outside, and placed in a patrol car by defendant police officers Angel Sanchez, Jermaine Davis, Oscar Sanchez, and Flores-Garcia of the East Palo Alto Police Department based on a warrant for another person.
Plaintiff’s operative FAC nominally alleges causes of action for breach of contract, common counts, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Defendants argue that each cause of action is subject to demurrer for failure to comply with the claims presentation requirements of the Government Claims Act and for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
California's Government Claims Act (Gov. Code sections 810–996.6) governs tort liability for public entities and their employees. (Gov. Code, § 810.) Under Government Code section 905, all claims for money or damages against local public entities must be presented in accordance with the Act’s procedures. (Gov. Code, § 905.) Government Code section 945.4 reinforces this requirement by providing that no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity until a written claim has been presented and acted upon or deemed rejected by the governing board. (
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?”
A critical statute governing suits against individual public employees is Government Code section 950.2 which provides that “a cause of action against a public employee or former public employee for injury resulting from an act or omission in the scope of his employment as a public employee is barred if an action against the employing public entity for such injury is barred” for failure to comply with claim presentation requirements. (Gov. Code, § 950.2.) Notably, this bar applies “even though the public entity is immune from liability for the injury.” (Id.) Thus, for state tort claims, the claim presentation requirement applicable to a public entity extends
July 28, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 19 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________ derivatively to the individual officer acting within the scope of employment. (See Williams v. Horvath, supra, 16 Cal. 3d at p. 834.) This principle applies to bar an action against a police officer where the plaintiff fails to file a claim under the Tort Claims Act. (See, e.g. Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal. App. 4th 761 (holding that an injured motorist could not maintain a negligence action against a police officer where the plaintiff failed to timely file a government claim.)
Plaintiff’s FAC does not allege that he has complied with a claims statute, but instead alleges that “Defendants are sued in their individual capacities; no claim presentation is required.” (FAC, at p. 2.) Plaintiff’s causes of action for breach of contract, common counts, and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing are therefore barred. Plaintiff alleges that the underlying events took place on December 7, 2025. (Id. at p. 6.) Claims relating to death, personal injury, or damage to personal property or growing crops must be brought within 6 months after accrual of the cause of action, while for all other types of claims against public entities, the deadline is one year after accrual. (Gov. Code, § 911.2.) More than one year has elapsed since the alleged events; thus the time for filing a government claim has expired.
The FAC does not allege the existence of a contract, any contractual terms, or facts supporting common count or breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing causes of action. While those deficiencies may be curable by amendment, the claims would still be barred for failure to present a government claim absent an exception.
Plaintiff has already amended his original complaint once, and has not offered any argument that an exception applies to the claims presentation requirement or that he can obtain relief for the requirement. If Plaintiff believes that he has facts to state a cause of action, he shall properly contest the tentative ruling and appear at the hearing to provide facts to support the Court granting leave to amend. Although leave to amend is liberally allowed, such leave should not be granted where, in all probability as it appears to be in this case, amendment would be futile. (Foroudi v.
Aerospace Corp. (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 992, 1001.) It is the burden of the party seeking leave to amend to show the possibility that amendment can cure the legal defects of the pleading. (Frayo v. Martin (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 1025, 1033; Fox Paine & Co., LLC v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co. (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 1034, 1060.)
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Defendants shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.