HABIBI vs ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.

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***

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV026041: HABIBI vs ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. 08/12/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 8C

Defendant Elk Grove Unifies School District’s (“Defendant”) demurrer to Plaintiff Adam Habibi, by and through his guardian ad litem, Sofia Habibi’s (“Plaintiff”) complaint is ruled upon as follows.

Background

Plaintiff, through his guardian ad litem, brings this action against Defendant Elk Grove Unified School District and other defendants stemming from an incident that allegedly occurred on November 7, 2024, while Plaintiff was in after-school care and was allegedly assaulted by two minor students, including one student that purportedly had a known history of aggression and who allegedly slammed Plaintiff’s head onto the concrete. Plaintiff alleges that he suffered serious injuries, including traumatic brain injuries.

Here, Plaintiff, through his counsel, presented a government claim to Defendant on or about May 7, 2025.1 (Declaration of Melissa Reynolds, ¶ 2; Exhibit A.) Plaintiff’s claim listed the amount claimed as “TBD” and did not specifically state that it was an unlimited civil claim.

On May 15, 2025, Schools Insurance Authority, the entity responsible for administering all government claims submitted to Defendant, sent Plaintiff’s counsel a “Notice of Insufficiency of Claim” wherein SIA informed counsel of the claim’s purported defect. (Reynolds Decl., ¶ 3; Exhibit B.)

Neither Plaintiff nor anyone on his behalf submitted a new or amended claim to cure the purported defect in the original claim. (Reynolds Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff’s counsel has no record of receiving this notice.

Defendant now demurs to Plaintiff’s complaint on the following grounds:

1. Plaintiff’s Lawsuit is Barred for Failure to Comply with the Government Claims Act

2. The Government Claim Omitted Information Required by Government Code Section 910(f).

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV026041: HABIBI vs ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. 08/12/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 8C

3. Plaintiff’s Complaint Asserts a Different Set of Facts Than is Asserted in his Tort Claim

(Notice, 2:2-4.)

Plaintiff opposes the demurrer.

Legal Standard

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.) 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.)

On demurrer, allegations of the challenged pleading 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 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 demurrer may be sustained only if the challenged pleading lacks any sufficient allegations to entitle the plaintiff to relief. (Financial Corp. of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 764, 778.) “‘“[P]laintiff need only plead facts showing that he may be entitled to some relief . . .”, we are not concerned with plaintiff’s possible inability or difficulty in proving the allegations . . . .’” (Highlanders, Inc. v. Olsan (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 690, 696-697.)

Discussion

Plaintiffs must comply with the Government Claims Act as a mandatory prerequisite to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV026041: HABIBI vs ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. 08/12/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 8C

pursuing a civil action against a public entity or the public entity’s employees. (Government Code §§ 911.2, 912.4, 945.4; see also Munoz v. State of California (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1767.)

Government Code section 905 requires that all claims for money or damages against local public entities be presented to the public entity before a lawsuit is filed. (Government Code § 905). In cases of personal injury, the claim must be submitted within six months after the accrual of the cause of action. (Government Code § 911.2(a).)

Government Code section 910 provides the essential elements required to be included in a government claims follows:

[a] claim shall be presented by the claimant or by a person acting on his or her behalf and shall show all of the following: (a) the name and post office address of the claimant; (b) the post office address to which the person presenting the claim desires notices to be sent; (c) the date, place and other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted; (d) a general description of the indebtedness, obligation, injury, damage or loss incurred so far as it may be known at the time of presentation of the claim; (e) the name or names of the public employee or employees causing the injury, damage, or loss, if known; and (f) the amount claimed if it totals less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) as of the date of presentation of the claim, including the estimated amount of any prospective injury, damage, or loss, insofar as it may be known at the time of the presentation of the claim, together with the basis of computation of the amount claimed.

If the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000), no dollar amount shall be included in the claim. However, it shall indicate whether the claim would be a limited civil case.

(Gov. Code § 910.)

“Where a party attempts to comply with the claim statutes but the compliance is defective, the test of substantial compliance controls. ‘Under this test, the court must

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV026041: HABIBI vs ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. 08/12/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 8C

ask whether sufficient information is disclosed on the face of the filed claim ‘to reasonably enable the public entity to make an adequate investigation of the merits of the claim and to settle it without the expense of a lawsuit.’ [Citation.] The doctrine of substantial compliance, however, cannot cure total omission of an essential element from the claim or remedy a plaintiff's failure to comply meaningfully with the statute. [Citations.]” (State of California ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Superior Court (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 331, 335 [emphasis added].) “A claim under Government Code section 910 is sufficient if (1) there is some compliance with all of the statutory requirements.” (County of L.A. v. Sup. Ct. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 353, 360 [emphasis added].)

Information Required by Government Code Section 910(f)

Defendant first demurs to Plaintiff’s complaint on the ground that Plaintiff failed to include the requisite information under Government Code section 910(f) because Plaintiff failed to state either the dollar amount of damages claimed, or to state that the claim in an unlimited civil claim.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff totally omitted the information required by section 910(f), thereby depriving Defendant of the opportunity to attempt to settle the claim without the expense of a lawsuit as the claim failed to give notice of the value of the claim, i.e. whether the claim would be a limited civil case.

In opposition, Plaintiff relies heavily on Connelly v. County of Fresno (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 29, in arguing that Plaintiff substantially complied with Government Code section 910.

The Court finds Connelly instructive here.

In Connelly, the claimant identified an automobile collision as the basis for the claim. (Connelly, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th at pp. 32-33.) Where the form requested what injuries or damages were suffered, the form read: “Damage to my ’96 Chevy S-10 pickup – Car Rental until my Truck is Replaced. Unspecified Medical, Lost Income, future Medical.” (Ibid.) Where the form asked for “Total Amount Claimed[.]” the form read: “Unspecified.” (Ibid.) At the bottom the form requested the claimant “Attach & include, with this completed form, any bills for medical treatment and expenses and any estimates or bills for personal property damage.” But no bills for medical treatment or property damage were attached to the claim form submitted. (Ibid.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV026041: HABIBI vs ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. 08/12/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 8C

The County served Connelly with a Notice of Insufficiency, explicitly stating that there was no dollar amount and no description of injuries in the claim form. (Id. at 33.) In response, Plaintiff disclosed the property damage but did not provide any dollar amount for personal injuries in response, stating: “I am Claiming only Property Damage, and Car Rental at this time, however, I request and reserve the right to file a claim for Personal Injury at a later time.” (Ibid.) The County proceeded to settle the property damage claims with Plaintiff and denied the claim otherwise. On August 23, 2000, Connelly filed a complaint, naming the County as a defendant, alleging personal injuries from the same automobile accident, seeking damages for wage loss, hospital and medical expenses, general damages and loss of earning capacity.

On motion for summary judgment, the County argued that Connelly’s claim did not substantially comply with the Government Tort Claims Act, as it failed to provide the County with notice of the value of the personal injury claim. (Id. at 34.)

The trial court granted summary judgment, but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that despite not setting forth any description of personal injuries or otherwise indicating it was an unlimited claim, the Court held that “Her notice of claim satisfied the purposes of the claims statutes by providing sufficient information for the County to conduct an investigation into her injuries.” (Id. at 43, emphasis supplied.)

As in Connelly, Plaintiff here did not provide the amount of damages, listing them as “TBD”, and did not submit the dollar amount or state that the amount was unlimited after Defendant issued a notice of insufficiency of the claim.

The Court now, following Connelly, analyzes whether Plaintiff has substantially complied, looking to whether Plaintiff provided sufficient information for Defendant to “make an adequate investigation of the claim’s merits and settle it.” (Connelly, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th at p. 42.)

Here, Plaintiff disclosed the nature of Plaintiff’s personal injuries, specifying: “Adam Habibi (minor) was slammed onto the cement by a classmate Makayla Jackson, with a known history of aggression, causing him to hit his head hard on to the cement.” Additionally, where the form requested “What Injuries, Damages or Losses did you suffer?”, Plaintiff specified: “injuries include but not limited to traumatic brain injuries.”

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV026041: HABIBI vs ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. 08/12/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 8C

The Court finds that minor Plaintiff’s allegation in his claim that he was slammed onto the cement, causing him to hit his head hard on to the cement and purportedly suffer traumatic brain injuries, was enough to put Defendant on notice that Plaintiff’s damages would not be subject to limited jurisdiction.

On reply, Defendant tries to distinguish Connelly, arguing that the Court of Appeal “later emphasized that the County acknowledged the claimant has amended the dollar amount claimed to ‘within the Superior Court limit.’ (Id. at p. 42.) Connelly therefore did not involve a claimant who ignored a notice of insufficiency and left the public entity with no valuation or jurisdictional designation.” (Reply, 4:21-24.)

The Court finds this argument unconvincing. First, Connelly mentioned the amended property loss dollar amount in a footnote, and did not base its ruling on that fact. Instead, what Connelly turned on was whether Plaintiff has given the entity enough information for the entity to form a basis for investigation and settlement.

Next, importantly, if Plaintiff’s initial claim substantially complied with the statutory requirements, it does not matter whether Plaintiff responded to the letter of insufficiency. “Regardless of whether a notice of insufficiency is given, a failure or refusal to amend a claim ‘shall not constitute a defense to any action brought upon the cause of action for which the claim was presented if the court finds that the claim as presented complied substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2.” (§ 910.6, subd. (b).)” (Connelly, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th at p. 39.)

Because Plaintiff substantially complied with the requirement to apprise Defendant that his claim is unlimited, the Court need not reach the parties’ arguments regarding Defendant’s notice of insufficiency and Plaintiff’s failure to respond thereto.

Defendant demurrer on the ground that Plaintiff failed to comply with Government Code section 910(f) is OVERRULED.

Set of Facts Asserted in Tort Claim

Defendant also demurs on the ground that Plaintiff’s complaint asserts a different set of facts than was asserted in Plaintiff’s tort claim. Government Code section 910(c) requires the claimant to state the “date, place and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV026041: HABIBI vs ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. 08/12/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 8C

other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted.” (Gov. Code § 910(c).)

Here, Plaintiff alleges in his government claim that on November 7, 2024, he was “slammed onto the cement by a classmate Makayla Jackson, with a known history of aggression, causing him to hit his head hard onto the cement.” (Reynolds Decl., ¶ 2; Exhibit A.) Plaintiff identified Terry Mitchell, Susan McFarland, and a “substitute teacher” as the involved District employees. (Reynolds Decl., ¶ 2; Exhibit A.) For injuries, Plaintiff alleged “injuries include but not limited to traumatic brain injuries.” (Reynolds Decl., ¶ 2; Exhibit A.)

Defendant argues, “Plaintiff asserts an entirely different set of facts in his complaint. In his complaint, he alleges that on November 7, 2024, while at the Catalyst Kids afterschool program, he was ‘assaulted by two other minor students. During the assault, Plaintiff was held down by one student while the other student struck Plaintiff’s person multiple times, including Plaintiff’s neck.’ (Thompson Decl., ¶ 2; Exhibit A.) Plaintiff alleges the two involved staff members were William Kukis and Janiya Boothe. (Thompson Decl., ¶ 2; Exhibit A.)

Plaintiff’s complaint omits any mention of his head being slammed onto the cement, classmate Makayla Jackson or her apparently “known history of aggression” or a traumatic brain injury. (See Thompson Decl., ¶ 2; Exhibit A.) The two staff members identified in the complaint are entirely different than the employees identified in the claim.” (Defendant’s Memorandum, 5:17-27.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues:

The controlling rule is Stockett: a government claim “need not specify each particular act or omission later proven to have caused the injury,” and a complaint’s fuller factual exposition is permissible so long as it is not based on an “entirely different set of facts.” (Stockett v. Association of Cal. Water Agencies Joint Powers Ins. Authority (2004) 34 Cal.4th 441, 447.) Courts find insufficiency only where there has been a “complete shift in allegations,” generally involving different times, different persons, or different conduct from that described in the claim. (Ibid.; Blair v. Superior Court (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 221, 226.) The statute requires fair notice; it does not require a minor child, before discovery and shortly after a traumatic school assault, to deliver a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV026041: HABIBI vs ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. 08/12/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 8C

final investigative report.

(Opposition, 11:8-17.)

Plaintiff emphasizes that Plaintiff’s claim

“alleged that on November 7, 2024, at McGarvey Elementary School, Adam Habibi was slammed onto cement by a classmate with a known history of aggression, causing his head to strike the cement, and further alleged negligent supervision, negligent training, negligent handling of prior complaints, failure to notify Adam’s parents, and failure to contact medical services. The Complaint in this action pleads that same occurrence: Adam was at McGarvey Elementary, in a school-sponsored after-school program on premises controlled by [Defendant], when he was assaulted by minor students while inadequately supervised; staff failed to monitor, intervene, notify his mother, contact emergency medical services, or properly respond; and [Defendant] knew or should have known of the assailants’ dangerous propensities. (Opp. at pp. 11-12 [citing Compl., ¶¶ 23-27; 76-84].)

The Court finds that Plaintiff substantially complied with identifying the occurrence on which the lawsuit is based, especially in light of the circumstances of a child allegedly suffering serious brain injury resulting from an assault by another child during afterschool care. Defendant was given sufficient information to investigate and settle the claim, and Plaintiff’s adjustments of the details surrounding the incident are not a complete shift in allegations

Defendant’s demurrer on the ground that Plaintiff’s complaint asserts a different set of facts is OVERRULED.

Disposition

Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED in its entirety.

Defendant shall file and serve its response no later than August 24, 2026.

This minute order is effective immediately. The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV026041: HABIBI vs ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. 08/12/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 8C