DEARY-SMITH vs STOOPS, et al.

24CV016060: DEARY-SMITH vs STOOPS, et al. 08/03/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint in Department 8C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8C in the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line for Department 8C at (916) 874-8380, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail message (a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; (b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and (c) confirming that they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16039062174

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

24CV016060: DEARY-SMITH vs STOOPS, et al. 08/03/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint in Department 8C

ID: 16039062174

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION***

Defendants County of Sacramento (“County”), Anne Marie Schubert (“Schubert”), Elaine Stoops (“Stoops”), Noah Louis Phillips (“Phillips”), and Janice Hansen Scully’s (“Scully”) (collectively, “County Defendants”) demurrer to Plaintiffs in pro per Rashid Deary-Smith (“Rashid”) and Patricia L. Smith’s (“Patricia”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) is ruled upon as follows.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016060: DEARY-SMITH vs STOOPS, et al. 08/03/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint in Department 8C

County Defendants’ counsel is admonished for failing to comply with California Rules of Court rule 3.1110(f)(4), which requires electronic exhibits to include electronic bookmarks linking to the first page of each exhibit. Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in papers not being considered, matters being continued so that papers may be submitted in the proper format, and/or the imposition of sanctions.

County Defendants’ request for judicial notice of court documents, including documents filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:24-cv-02268- DC-SCR (the “federal action”), is granted. In taking judicial notice of these documents, the Court takes judicial notice of their existence, including the truth of results reached, but not the truth of hearsay statements contained therein. (In re Vicks (2013) 56 Cal.4th 274, 314.)

Background

County Defendants demurs to the entire FAC on the basis that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by res judicata. County Defendants contend that “this case has already been heard in the Federal District Court, [and thus] this demurrer should be sustained without leave to amend because the requirements of res judicata are met.” (Demurrer MPA, p. 5:22-23.)

Proceedings in the Present Action

On August 13, 2024, Rashid filed the original Complaint in this action. On December 18, 2025, before any defendant was served or otherwise appeared, Plaintiffs filed the FAC, with Patricia included as a plaintiff. Patricia is Rashid’s mother. Plaintiffs allege that Rashid was wrongfully convicted and incarcerated for 10 years and eight months for a crime he did not commit. The FAC includes three causes of action: (1) intentional tort; (2) fraud; and (3) general negligence. The FAC names several defendants.

As to County Defendants, Plaintiffs allege that Rashid was prosecuted by Phillips and that Phillips targeted Rashid for unknown reasons. Plaintiffs allege that Phillips “filed documents in court falsely claiming that [Rashid’s] DNA was positive,” and that he “ordered the prison to false classify [Rashid] as a sex offender.” (FAC, p. 4.) Plaintiffs also allege that Phillips “maliciously targeted” Patricia by raiding her home, requesting that she be removed from the courtroom during Rashid’s trial, and calling her a hoodlum/thug, among other things.

Plaintiffs also allege that Stoops falsified a crime report and falsely testified during the criminal proceedings. Plaintiffs also allege that Scully, Phillips, and Schubert used a false arrest warrant to arrest Rashid. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that all named defendants “violated the Plaintiffs[’] Civil Rights by Fraud, False Imprisonment, False Arrest, [and] Defamation of Character” when they “used false documents to keep [Rashid] in prison for 10 years and 8 month[s] without proof [as] to why he was false[ly] imprisoned.” (FAC, p. 6.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016060: DEARY-SMITH vs STOOPS, et al. 08/03/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint in Department 8C

Proceedings in the Federal Action

On January 14, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint for Damages in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. (RJN, Exh. B.) All of the defendants named in the present action were named as defendants in the federal action. The federal action included 15 causes of action: (1) violation of rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983); (2) unlawful detention (42 U.S.C. § 1983); (3) false imprisonment (42 U.S.C. § 1983); (4) retaliation (42 U.S.C. § 1983); (5) excessive force (42 U.S.C. § 1983); (6) libel & slander (42 U.S.C. § 1983); (7) malicious prosecution (42 U.S.C. § 1983); (8) assault; (9) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (10) sexual defamation of character; (11) obstruction of justice; (12) fraud; (13) failure to supervise; (14) failure to properly train; and (15) perjury.

These claims arise from the same general events alleged in the current action. Plaintiffs alleged in the federal action that Rashid “was maliciously targeted by Defendant Noah Phillips, an unethical former homicide prosecutor known in the Del Paso Heights community for false imprisoning individuals, for crimes they were not involved in.” (RJN, Exh. H, p. 2:5-8.) Plaintiffs also alleged that he was framed by Stoops, Phillips, Scully, and Schubert through false testimony and fabricated evidence. (RJN, Exh.

H, pp. 3:23- 5:21, 6:13-15:22. 16:19-17:15.)

County Defendants moved to dismiss the federal action, and on July 1, 2025, Magistrate Judge Sean C. Riordan issued recommended dismissal without leave to amend on several grounds, including that Patricia lacked standing, that the claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey (1994) 512 U.S. 477, that claims arising from the criminal prosecution were barred by the statute of limitations, and that County Defendants were entitled to prosecutorial immunity and Eleventh Amendment immunity. (RJN, Exh. J.) On September 25, 2025, District Court Judge Dena M. Coggins adopted the recommendation in full and granted County Defendants’ motion to dismiss without leave to amend. (RJN, Exh. K.) Judgment was entered in favor of County Defendants’ pursuant to the order of dismissal on September 25, 2025. (See RJN filed by Defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Exh. E.)

Discussion

The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the pleading it challenges by raising questions of law. (Salimi v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 216, 219; Nordlinger v. Lynch (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1259, 1271.) A demurrer “tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) The purpose of a demurrer is to test the legal sufficiency of a claim. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) For the purpose of determining the effect of a complaint, its allegations are liberally construed, with a view toward substantial justice. (Code Civ. Proc. § 452; Amarel v. Connell (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 137, 140-141; Quelimane Co. v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016060: DEARY-SMITH vs STOOPS, et al. 08/03/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint in Department 8C

Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 43, fn. 7.) In this respect, the Court treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law, and considers matters which may be judicially noticed. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1111-1112.) A general demurrer does not admit contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the complaint; facts impossible in law; or allegations contrary to facts of which a court may take judicial notice. (Blank v.

Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318, William S. Hart Union High School Dist. v. Regional Planning Com. (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1612, 1616, fn. 2.) Extrinsic evidence may not properly be considered on demurrer. (Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881; Hibernia Savings & Loan Soc. v. Thornton (1897) 117 Cal. 481, 482.)

“Where ‘all of the facts necessary to show that an action is barred by res judicata are within the complaint or subject to judicial notice, a trial court may properly sustain a general demurrer.’” (Shine v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 1070, 1076-1077, emphasis added.) “In ruling on a demurrer based on res judicata, a court may take judicial notice of the official acts or records of any court in this state.” (Frommhagen v. Bd. of Supervisors (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 1292, 1299.)

“The preclusive effect of a federal-court judgment is determined by federal common law.” (Taylor v. Sturgell (2008) 533 U.S. 880, 891.) “For judgments in federal-question cases federal courts participate in developing ‘uniform federal rule[s]’ of res judicata, which [the United States Supreme Court] has ultimate authority to determine and declare.” (Ibid.)

“Under federal law, res judicata applies when the earlier action ‘(1) involved the same “claim” or cause of action as the later suit, (2) reached a final judgment on the merits, and (3) involved identical parties or privies.’” (Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp. (9th Cir. 2022) 49 F.4th 1300, 1306.[1]) The test for the “same claim or cause of action” element has been stated as follows:

Whether the two suits involve the same claim or cause of action requires us to look at four criteria, which we do not apply mechanistically: (1) whether the two suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts; (2) whether rights or interests established in the prior judgment would be destroyed or impaired by prosecution of the second action; (3) whether the two suits involve infringement of the same right; and (4) whether substantially the same evidence is presented in the two actions.

(Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys. (2005) 430 F.3d 985, 987.)

The “same transactional nucleus of facts” element is often “outcome determinative,” as it

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016060: DEARY-SMITH vs STOOPS, et al. 08/03/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint in Department 8C

“controls and assures the two suits involve the same claim or cause of action.” (Mpoyo, supra, 430 F.3d at p. 988.) Thus, even where the subsequent action alleges different legal theories, the action is barred by res judicata if it involves the same essential facts. (First Pac. Bancorp, Inc. v. Helfer (9th Cir. 2000) 224 F.3d 1117, 1128-1129.) “Claim preclusion bars grounds for recovery which could have been asserted in a prior suit between the same parties on the same cause of action.” (Id. at p. 1129.)

The elements of res judicata are satisfied here. Plaintiffs and County Defendants were both parties to the federal action, and the federal action reached a final judgment on the merits. Additionally, although the causes of action are different between the two cases, both actions “arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts.” (Mpoyo, supra, 430 F.3d at p. 987.) Both actions arise out of the alleged wrongful arrest, prosecution, and conviction of Rashid for a crime he did not commit based on allegedly falsified evidence. As to County Defendants, the alleged wrongdoing in both actions relates to the alleged falsification of evidence and malicious targeting of Rashid for criminal prosecution based on that falsified evidence.

Plaintiffs contend that their state law claims were not adjudicated in the federal action. No authority is cited for this assertion, but even accepting it as correct, it does not address whether Plaintiffs’ state law claims in the present case arise from the same transactional nucleus of facts as the claims in the federal action. Moreover, the federal action included several state tort claims, including assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, sexual defamation of character, and fraud.

These claims are essentially restated as the intentional tort and fraud causes of action in the present case. Moreover, the negligence action could have been brought in the federal case, and Plaintiffs have not presented any argument otherwise. Plaintiffs also contend that res judicata presents factual issues that cannot be resolved on demurrer. Plaintiffs again fail to cite any authority for this assertion. Even so, this argument ignores the fact that the Court can look beyond the face of the pleading to matters subject to judicial notice, including the filings in the federal action. (Frommhagen, supra, 197 Cal.App.3d at p. 1299.)

Plaintiffs do not meaningfully address whether their claims in this action are sufficiently different from their claims in the federal action to avoid res judicata. Thus, Plaintiffs have not rebutted County Defendants’ showing that res judicata applies.

Disposition

For the reasons discussed above, County Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiffs’ FAC is SUSTAINED on res judicata grounds. The Court need not address the other grounds raised in the demurrer.

Leave to amend is DENIED. Plaintiffs have the burden to show how the FAC can be amended to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016060: DEARY-SMITH vs STOOPS, et al. 08/03/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint in Department 8C

cure the defect on which the demurrer is sustained. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) “Leave to amend should be denied when the facts are not in dispute and the nature of the claim is clear, but no liability exists under substantive law.” (Lawrence v. Bank of America (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 431, 436.) Here, Plaintiffs have not shown how they could amend the FAC to overcome the res judicata bar.

County Defendants shall submit a judgment of dismissal for the Court’s signature.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

[1] Notably, “[t]he elements of res judicata are similar under California law: ‘Claim preclusion arises if a second suit

involves: (1) the same cause of action (2) between the same parties (3) after a final judgment on the merits in the first suit.’” (Sonner, supra, 49 F.4th at p. 1306, citing DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerbar (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 824.)