which those recreational activities take place.' " [Citation.]" (Helm v. City of Los Angeles (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1219, 1226 (Helm).) " ' "The plainly stated purpose of immunity for recreational activities on public land is to encourage public entities to open their property for public recreational use, because ' "the burden and expense of putting such property in a safe condition and the expense of defending claims for injuries would probably cause many public entities to close such areas to public use." ' " ' " [Citation.] " 'Trail immunity applies to all manner of defects in the trail's condition.' " ([Citation]; see Amberger-Warren v.

City of Piedmont (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1084 (Amberger-Warren) [" 'It is well established that the immunity covers negligent maintenance of a trail' "]; Treweek v. City of Napa (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 221, 227 [" ' "It is . . . clear that the state is absolutely immune from liability for injuries caused by a physical defect of a trail" ' "].) (Helm, supra, 101 Cal.App.5th at p. 1226.)

By way of his opposition, Plaintiff does not deny that he was utilizing a "trail," at El Capitan State Beach Park, when he was injured. Rather, Plaintiff argues that the immunity statute is inapplicable because Plaintiff was not "recreating" at the time of his injury. Plaintiff argues that he was a volunteer for beach clean-up day. Plaintiff's argument regarding not "recreating" is without merit. Government Code section 831.4 does not create any exception for a volunteer. Courts have consistently found that persons utilizing recreational trails for purposes other than recreation are barred from bringing actions against public entities for any defects in the condition of trails and walkways. (see Montenegro v.

City of Bradbury (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 924; Arvizu v. City of Pasadena (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 760; Burgueno v. Regents of University of California (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 1052

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Other rulings by Thomas Anderle Judge Thomas Anderle dossier Other Motion to Compel Discovery in SANTABARBARA All SANTABARBARA County rulings Other Civil Law & Motion cases Other denied rulings in SANTABARBARA

Related rulings

by semantic similarity

Source

Print-friendly view

.) " '[T]o fulfill its purpose, trail immunity must extend to claims arising from the design of a trail, as well as its maintenance.' " [Citations.] " '[L]ocation, no less than design, is an integral feature of a trail, and both must be immunized for the same reasons.' " [Citation.] This immunity is absolute. [Citation.]" (Leyva v.

Crockett & Co., Inc. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 1105, 1109, italics added.)

The demurrer will be sustained. Plaintiff requests that, should the Court sustain the demurrer, leave to amend be granted. Although the Court has doubts that Plaintiff will be capable of amending the FAC to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the State, he will be given leave to amend.

Tentative Ruling: Enzo Carlos et al vs Angela Catherine Canfield Tentative Ruling: Enzo Carlos et al vs Angela Catherine Canfield Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 06/03/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motions to Compel Tentative Ruling Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Monica Robles. Attorneys for Defendant: Jennifer Tseng, H. Daniel Burrows, Summer Massey. Issue Motions to Compel RULING These are two motions to compel compliance with deposition subpoenas issued to Chubb Group of Insurance Companies, and California Managed Imaging Medical Group, respectively. No opposition or other response has been filed.

Both motions attach the respective deposition subpoenas. Neither motion attaches a completed or signed proof of service as to a deposition subpoena. Both proofs of service check contradictory boxes as to the person serving, stating that the person serving the subpoena is both a registered California process server and not a registered California process server. In the absence of proof that either deposition subpoena was served on the respective deponent, both motions are denied without prejudice. The Trial Date of 11/4/26 is confirmed.

Tentative Ruling: Enzo Carlos, et al. vs. Angela Catherine Canfield Tentative Ruling: Enzo Carlos, et al. vs. Angela Catherine Canfield Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 07/29/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motion for Order Compelling the Attendance and Testimony of Plaintiff Enzo Carlos At His Deposition Tentative Ruling For Plaintiffs Enzo Carlos and Susana Perez: Monica M. Robles, Robles-Muzinich, APC For Defendant Angela Catherine Canfield: Jennifer T. Tseng, H. Daniel Burrows, E. Richard McGuire, Tseng & Associates RULING For the reasons stated herein, the motion of Defendant for an order compelling the attendance and testimony of Plaintiff at his deposition is granted.

Plaintiff Enzo Carlos is ordered to appear for a deposition on August 3, 2026, at the time and place listed in the "Continued Notice of Taking Deposition of Plaintiff Enzo Carlos" dated April 14, 2026, a copy of which is attached to Defendant's motion. The Court awards sanctions in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff Enzo Carlos and his counsel of record, Robles-Muzinich, A Professional Corporation, jointly and severally, in the amount of $960, payable to Defendant's counsel. Payment of sanctions is due by August 29, 2026.

This action arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on June 13, 2024, in Santa Barbara, California, when Defendant Angela Catherine Canfield (Defendant) allegedly caused their vehicle to collide with Plaintiffs' vehicle, causing injury and damages to Plaintiffs Enzo Carlos (Carlos) and Susana Perez, and fled the scene. Plaintiffs filed their complaint against Defendant on July 3, 2025, asserting two causes of action: (1) motor vehicle; and (2) general negligence. On November 5, 2025, Defendant filed an answer to the complaint, generally denying its allegations and asserting affirmative defenses.

On June 30, 2026, Defendant filed a motion for an order compelling Plaintiff Carlos to attend and testify at a deposition, and awarding monetary sanctions in favor of Defendant and against Carlos and his counsel of record. In support of the motion, counsel for Defendant, Brian Goldberg (attorney Goldberg) asserts that Carlos is the party claiming personal injuries and damages in this case. (Goldberg Dec., P. 3.) On February 16, 2026, attorney Goldberg sent an email to counsel for Carlos requesting available dates for Carlos' deposition. (Goldberg Dec., P. 4 & exhibit A.)

Attorney Goldberg followed up on February 18 because no response had been received, and further states that, despite efforts to give Carlos a reasonable amount of time to provide available dates, Carlos' counsel failed to provide any dates. (Goldberg Dec., P.P.4-5.)