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***

Defendant Alicia Derrico’s (“Derrico”) 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.

Derrico’s 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

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

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.

Derrico’s request for judicial notice of court 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

Derrico demurs to the entire FAC on the basis that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by res judicata. Derrico contends, “Plaintiffs filed a federal damages action based on the same general set of facts approximately two years ago that was dismissed on the merits and a judgment was entered against them.” (Demurrer MPA, p. 2:6-8.)

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.

The only allegations that appear to apply to Derrico are that she engaged in misconduct “when she signed 7 of 13 Abstract of Judgments and illegally remanded [Rashid] to Defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,” despite knowing that Rashid had been wrongfully convicted. (FAC, p. 5.) Plaintiffs also allege that Patricia “contacted all the named Defendants, who violated her Civil Rights by responding with false information.” (FAC, p. 5.) 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 fals[ly] imprisoned.” (FAC, p. 6.)

Although not clearly stated in the FAC, Derrico was a courtroom clerk during Rashid’s trial.

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. A.) All of the defendants named

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

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. A, p. 2:5-8.) Noah Phillips is a named defendant in the current action and is alleged to have wrongfully targeted Rashid in pursuing the prosecution against him. (See FAC, p. 4.)

As against Derrico, Plaintiffs alleged in the federal action that during Rashid’s incarceration, “his conviction charges repeatedly were dismissed and vacated. But, the court clerk repeatedly remanded [Rashid] back to the Sacramento Sheriff Department.” (RJN, Exh. A, p. 15:24-28, citations to exhibits omitted.)

Derrico moved to dismiss the federal action, and on July 1, 2025, Magistrate Judge Sean C. Riordan issued recommended dismissal without leave to amend on the basis that (1) Patricia lacked standing (2) Rashid’s claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey (1994) 512 U.S. 377, 486-487; (3) claims of misconduct during the prosecution were time-barred by the statute of limitations; and (4) Derrico was entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. (RJN, Exh. B.) On September 25, 2025, District Court Judge Dena M. Coggins adopted the recommendation in full and granted Derrico’s motion to dismiss without leave to amend. (RJN, Exh. C.) Judgment was entered in favor of Derrico pursuant to the order of dismissal on September 25, 2025. (RJN, Exh. D.)

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. 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

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

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 transaction nucleus of facts” element is often “outcome determinative,” as it “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

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

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 Derico 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 Derrico, the alleged wrongdoing in both actions relates to her actions as the courtroom clerk in Rashid’s criminal proceedings. These issues were already litigated in the federal action or could have been litigated. This conclusion is not thwarted by the fact that Plaintiffs’ allegations against Derrico in the present action involve her signing abstracts of judgment while the allegations in the federal action involved her wrongfully remanding the case. “The fact that some different evidence may be presented [in the subsequent action] does not defeat the bar of res judicata.” (International Union of Operating Engineers-Employers Constr.

Indus. Pension, etc. v. Karr (9th Cir. 1993) 994 F.2d 1426, 1430.) Thus, the first res judicata element is also satisfied.

Plaintiffs contend that issues of res judicata “ordinarily cannot be determined solely from the face of the complaint.” (Opp. MPA, p. 5:1.) No authority is cited for this assertion, but even accepting it as correct, it 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 Derrico’s showing that res judicata applies.

Disposition

For the reasons discussed above, Derrico’s 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 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.

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

Derrico 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.)