H.J. v. Doe 1 and County of Santa Clara

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 12 Honorable Nahal Iravani-Sani, Presiding Courtroom Clerk, Ryan Nguyen 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2230

DATE: 08/19/2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.

LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 23CV424431 Eslambolchizadeh MOTION TO COMPEL v. Sonicwall Inc. Off Calendar per Stipulation and Order 8/12/2026 LINE 2 23CV425156 Katrina Vallejo et. al MOTION FOR TRIAL PREFERENCE v. Richard Hansen et al. Plaintiff’s motion for trial preference pursuant to CCP section 36(b).

Notice is proper. The Court has received no opposition from Defendants. “[T]he failure to file an opposition creates an inference that the motion or demurrer is meritorious.” (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Good Cause Appearing, Plaintiff’s motion is granted. The case shall proceed to trial within 120 days. Counsel to meet and confer and appear on 8/19/26 for trial re-setting scheduling. (Please be advised the Court is DARK the weeks of 12/21/26 and 12/28/26.)

Plaintiff to prepare the final order, accompanied by the necessary Forms EFS-020, within 7 days of the date of the hearing.

LINE 3 24CV438575 H.J. DEMURRER v. Doe 1 and County of Santa Clara Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 3 LINE 4 25CV456689 Richard Chamberlain MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS v. Santa Clara Public Defender’s Office et al. Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 4 LINE 5 25CV457483 Richard Chamberlain MOTION TO STRIKE v. Jason Chamberlain Moot in light of ruling on Motion for Summary Judgement; Off calendar LINE 6 25CV463225 Bejar Moreno et al. MOTION TO COMPEL v. Bernice Chavez Off calendar per dismissal filed 8/6/2026 LINE 7 25CV471884 Tominaga et al. DEMURRER & MOTION TO STRIKE v. LINE 8 Palo Alto Cuisine, et al. Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 7 - 8

Calendar Line 3 Case Name: J.H. v. County of Santa Clara Case No.: 24CV438575

BACKGROUND Plaintiff J.H. (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action against defendant County of Santa Clara (“Defendant” or “the County”) on May 7, 2024. On December 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. The parties then stipulated to the filing of a second amended complaint (“SAC”) and the SAC was filed on November 17, 2025.

According to the allegations of the SAC, Plaintiff was in foster care from the age of approximately eight years old, beginning in April 1979. (SAC, ¶¶ 27-28.) Plaintiff was taken to the Santa Clara County Children’s Shelter (“the Shelter”) and remained there until November 1979. (SAC, ¶ 29.) Plaintiff was placed under the care of Stan Heimowitz (“Heimowitz”), a case worker. (SAC, ¶ 30.)

After arriving at the Shelter, a male employee named “Nick”1 introduced himself to Plaintiff and thereafter began grooming him for abuse by giving him candy and special privileges that he did not give to other boys. (SAC, ¶ 31.) “Nick” then began sexually assaulting and abusing Plaintiff, including by representing to Plaintiff that his mother had to come to visit him and taking him to a secluded room. (SAC, ¶ 32.) The sexual abuse continued daily throughout Plaintiff’s stay at the Shelter. (SAC, ¶¶ 33, 34.) “Nick” threatened Plaintiff, including telling him not to tell anyone about the abuse because nobody would believe him. (SAC, ¶ 35.)

In December 1979, Defendant entrusted Plaintiff’s care to Carolyn Hamilton Dayes (“Dayes”), who then sexually abused Plaintiff daily from the time he arrived at 8 until 15-years old. (SAC, ¶¶ 36-37, 38.) Dayes accomplished the abuse by both physical force and using her status as a lawyer to intimidate and threaten Plaintiff. (SAC, ¶ 39.) During the ongoing course of the sexual abuse, the abuse was reported to Defendant County of Santa Clara’s caseworker, Heimowitz. No investigation or action was taken and the sexual abuse and assault on Plaintiff continued. (SAC, ¶ 40.)

Plaintiff suppressed the sexual abuse for decades but as an adult, he discovered he had difficulty functioning and suffered from depression, anxiety, among other things. (SAC, ¶¶ 42, 44, 45, 46.) As a child, Plaintiff was led to believe that the sexual abuse was his own fault and that he was deserving of the abuse. (SAC, ¶ 43.) In or around December 2023 and January 2024, Plaintiff began to discover the true cause of his injuries and that many other foster children had similar experiences. (SAC, ¶ 47.) These discoveries rematerialized Plaintiff’s suppressed memories. (SAC, ¶ 48.)

The SAC asserts one claim for negligence against the County and another claim for negligence against Does 11 through 25. On December 21, 2025, Defendant filed a demurrer to the SAC. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

1 “Nick’s” full name is unknown to Plaintiff. (SAC, ¶ 31.)

LEGAL STANDARD In ruling on a demurrer, the Court treats it “as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Piccinini v. Cal. Emergency Management Agency (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 685, 688, citing Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318 (Blank).) “A demurrer tests only the legal sufficiency of the pleading. It admits the truth of all material factual allegations in the complaint; the question of plaintiff’s ability to prove these allegations, or the possible difficulty in making such proof does not concern the reviewing court.” (Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 213-214.)

DISCUSSION

Defendant demurs to the SAC on the following grounds: 1) it is time-barred; 2) the SAC fails to plead facts of sufficient notice of the alleged sexual abuse; 3) the SAC fails to plead with particularity how breach of a mandatory duty proximately caused Plaintiff’s injuries; 4) the SAC fails to plead facts showing the claim falls outside the breadth of applicable statutory immunity; and 5) the SAC fails to plead facts supporting boilerplate allegations of a cover-up, which cannot be asserted against a public entity.

Plaintiff’s main argument in opposition is that the filing of a third amended complaint will cure the defects raised by the demurrer. (E.g., Opposition, p. 7:1-4.) Given that this is the first pleading challenge, and Plaintiff has indicated he seeks to amend his pleading, and how he will do so, the Court will sustain the demurrer with leave to amend. (See City of Stockton v. Superior Ct. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 730, 747 [“If the plaintiff has not had an opportunity to amend the complaint in response to [a] demurrer, leave to amend is liberally allowed as a matter of fairness, unless the complaint shows on its face that it is incapable of amendment.”].)

However, because this will be the third amended complaint, it will be the last opportunity for Plaintiff to amend his pleading to state a claim against Defendant. Should Defendant take issue with the allegations of the third amended complaint, it may then file another pleading motion or motion for summary judgment/adjudication. The Court will not address the remaining arguments.

Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED with 15 days leave to amend.

The Court will prepare the final order.

- oo0oo -