GUTIERREZ, PEDRO v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES ET AL

4. 25CV02285 GUTIERREZ, PEDRO v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES ET AL EVENT: Demurrer by Defendant Butte County to Plaintiff Zulema Herrera and by and Through her GAL Noemi Herra; Pedro Gutierrez First Amended Complaint Notice complies with Code of Civil Procedure §1005 in terms of timing, the proof of service showing service by email on June 22, 2026.

However, the proof of service shows service on Plaintiffs’ counsel only, and does not include counsel for Defendant State of California, by and through the Department of Water Resources. Code of Civil Procedure §1014 provides that “... A defendant appears in an action when the defendant answers, ... After appearance, a defendant or the defendant’s attorney is entitled to notice of all subsequent proceedings of which notice is required to be given....” Here, Defendant State of California, by and through the Department of Water Resources filed its Answer on April 20, 2026, and is therefore entitled to notice.

Notice is therefore insufficient and the matter is continued to August 26, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. to allow for proper notice with counsel for the Plaintiffs to provide notice to Defendant State of California, by and through the Department of Water Resources and file a proof of service with the Court.

5-6. 25CV02798 TYLER, MATTHEW v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL EVENTS: (1) State Defendants’ Demurrer (2) Plaintiff’s Motion/Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Opposition to Demurrer Defendants Secretary of State Shirley Weber, Attorney General Rob Bonta, State Treasurer Fiona Ma, Supervising Deputy Attorney General Lara Haddad, and Deputy Attorney General Edward Wolfe, all in their official capacities, and the State of California and Secretary of State’s Office’s (collectively “Defendants” herein) Request for Judicial Notice is granted. Plaintiff Matthew Tyler’s (“Plaintiff” herein) Request for Judicial Notice is granted.

While demurrers based upon uncertainty are disfavored where the defendant can reasonably determine the nature of the claims and frame a response, here, Plaintiff acknowledges that the existing pleadings contain “too many overlapping legal theories, insufficient separation among defendants, and allegations that should be treated as supporting facts rather than independent causes of action.” The Court agrees and the Demurrer is sustained on the grounds that it is uncertain and unintelligible. The Court does grant leave to amend.

As to the alleged violations of the Penal Code and federal criminal statutes, Plaintiff acknowledges, withdraws, “or does not oppose dismissal of claims that depend solely on private prosecution of criminal statutes, the Unruh Act against State Defendants, FEHA treatment of presidential candidacy as employment, negligent infliction of emotional distress as an independent tort, Government Code §1090 absent a specific contract and financial interest, Title VI as a disability-discrimination statute, taxpayer standing under Code of Civil Procedure § 526a against State Defendants, and §§ 1985–1986 absent sufficiently specific 2|Page