Krick v. Fresno County Sheriff’s Department

(20) Tentative Ruling

Re: Krick v. Fresno County Sheriff’s Department Superior Court Case No. 24CECG00820

Hearing Date: July 28, 2026 (Dept. 502)

Motion: Judgment on the Pleadings

If oral argument is timely requested, it will be entertained on Thursday, July 30, 2026, at 3:30 p.m. in Department 502.

Tentative Ruling:

To strike the First Amended Complaint filed on June 4, 2026. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).) To grant defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend as to all causes of action but violation of the Public Records Act. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(A).) Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 10 days of service of the order by the clerk asserting only one cause of action for violation of the California Public Records Act.

Explanation:

Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action on February 28, 2024, seemingly alleging causes of action for (1) illegal search and seizure, (2) destruction of property, (3) police misconduct, (4) defamation of character, and (5) withholding public records and (6) violations of the Public Records Act. Defendant Fresno County Sheriff’s Department filed an answer to the Complaint on March 13, 2025. Though in meeting and conferring plaintiff refused to amend the Complaint, resulting in defendant filing the instant motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff then filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on June 4, 2026

The FAC was improperly filed. Since defendant had filed an answer, plaintiff was required to obtain leave of court before amending the Complaint. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 472; Woo v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 169, 175.) Because plaintiff never obtained leave of court to file the FAC, the pleading is hereby stricken. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).) However, the ruling on the motion for judgment on the pleadings would be the same even if directed at the FAC, as it alleges the same causes of action.

No suit may be brought against a public entity until a written claim has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the Board, or has been deemed to be have been denied by the Board. (Gov. Code, § 945.4.) The claim filing requirement applies to any lawsuit for damages against government entities. (Gov. Code, §§ 911.2, 950.2, 945.4.) The failure to plead compliance with the Government Claims Act bars the plaintiff from bringing a suit against that entity and its employees. (Id., §§ 945.4 and 950.2; State v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1237.) Compliance with the claims presentation requirement is an element of plaintiff’s cause of action. (Id. at p. 1240.) A government tort claim pertaining to personal injury must be presented "not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action." (Gov. Code, § 911.2, subd. (a).) 3

The Complaint (and FAC) fails to plead compliance with the Government Claims Act. For that reason alone the motion must be granted. The court can also take judicial notice of facts showing that plaintiff failed to comply with the Government Claims Act. (See Fowler v. Howell (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1746, 1750 [taking judicial notice of absence of a claim in the State Board of Control’s records].) The Complaint alleges that the events giving rise to the claims herein occurred on August 5, 2021. (See Complaint ¶ 3.)

As established by the declaration of Jenny Thompson, Risk Manager for the County of Fresno, plaintiff submitted a clearly late claim with the County on November 25, 2024, and was sent a Notice of Untimely Claim on December 6, 2024, informing plaintiff that his only recourse is to promptly file an application to present a late claim to the Board of Supervisors. Plaintiff never filed such a request. An application for presenting a late claim must be submitted within a year after the accrual of the cause of action. (Gov.

Code, § 911.4, subd. (b).) Because plaintiff did not timely present a claim, and did not timely request permission to present a late claim, the motion is granted as to all but the cause of action for violation of the Public Records Act (which is not a claim for damages).

As to the Public Records Act claim, plaintiff alleges no facts regarding a request for public records production with which the Sherriff failed to comply, or public records that the Sherriff had a duty to disclose. Accordingly, leave to amend will be granted as to this cause of action only.

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: lmg on 7-24-26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

4