Eltiste vs. City of Tustin

Accordingly, Plaintiff is also awarded $3,495.53 in costs.

Plaintiff to give notice.

3 Eltiste vs. City of Demurrer to Complaint Tustin Defendant City of Tustin’s (City) Demurrer to the Complaint is 2026-01540573 OVERRULED.

A complaint is subject to dismissal on demurrer under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10 where the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in a complaint.

The City argues the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims as his alleged injuries were sustained while working as a volunteer for the City’s Parks and Recreation Department. Such injuries are covered by the City’s workers’ compensation program, which are the exclusive remedy for injuries arising out of the course and scope of employment. (Lab. Code § 3602(a); Lab. Code § 3363.5(a).)

The Complaint fails to allege Plaintiff was an employee or volunteer for the City’s Parks and Recreation Department. The City makes such argument without any proof that such relationship existed. A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleadings under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) No extrinsic evidence can be considered.

A demurrer based on workers’ compensation exclusivity is only proper when the complaint itself affirmatively alleges facts indicating coverage. (Arriaga v. Cnty. of Alameda (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1055, 1060.) Where a complaint does not affirmatively allege facts indicating workers’ compensation coverage on its face, the defendant cannot succeed on a demurrer based on the exclusive remedy defense. (Gibbs v. Am. Airlines, Inc., (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1, 13