BRIDGES vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

24CV016129: BRIDGES vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 02/04/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 25

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail 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 it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 25 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept25 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 1342 1868. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

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

24CV016129: BRIDGES vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 02/04/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 25

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 forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant California Department of Transportation’s (“Defendant” and/or “CalTrans”) demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED with LEAVE TO AMEND as follows.

Background

This action arises out of Defendant’s awarding of public contracts.

Plaintiffs Robert L. Bridges, as sole owner of BF Contracting Engineering and as managing partner of Homeless Haz Engineering JV; and Black Foundation (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed the Complaint in this action against Defendant and the Department of General Services[1] on August 15, 2024.

The Complaint alleges a single cause of action for “Discriminatory Practices in CalTrans Project Awarding Processes.” Plaintiffs are seeking damages “arising from discriminatory practices in CalTrans project awarding processes.” (Compl. 2:2-6.) Plaintiffs allege they “intend to prove that upper-level management at CalTrans practiced discrimination in the contract awarding process by not awarding bids and contracts to BF Contracting Engineering and Homeless Haz Engineering JV (BF) in order to prevent a Black contractor from succeeding in contracting with CalTrans.” (Compl. 2:6-10.) Specifically, Plaintiffs allege the loss of twelve business contracts as a result of CalTrans discriminatory practices. (Compl. ¶¶ 10-22.) Plaintiffs allege they lost $4,128,440.00 on the subject contracts. (Compl. ¶ 23.)

The Complaint does not allege the status/capacity of any of the business entity Plaintiffs. For example, Plaintiffs do not allege whether BF Contracting Engineering, Homeless Haz Engineering JV and/or Black Foundation are dbas for Robert L. Bridges, corporations, partnerships, or other business forms.

When the Complaint was filed, Plaintiffs were represented by counsel. On October 17, 2024, a substitution of counsel was filed by Plaintiff Robert L. Bridges, in which he

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016129: BRIDGES vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 02/04/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 25

states that he is now representing himself. Substitutions of counsel were not filed on behalf of any other Plaintiff.

CalTrans filed a demurrer to the Complaint on May 28, 2025.

Plaintiff Robert T. Bridges, in pro per, filed an opposition on behalf of himself. No oppositions were filed on behalf of the entity plaintiffs.

Legal Standard

The Court’s review is “governed by settled standards.” (SJJC Aviation Services, LLC v. City of San Jose (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1043, 1051.) The Court:

Review[s] the . . . complaint . . . “to determine whether it alleges facts stating a cause of action under any legal theory. [Citation.] [¶] Because the function of a demurrer is not to test the truth or accuracy of the facts alleged in the complaint, [the Court] assume[s] the truth of all properly pleaded factual allegations. [Citation.] Whether the plaintiff will be able to prove these allegations is not relevant; [the] focus is on the legal sufficiency of the complaint.” [Citations.] “Further, [the Court] give[s] the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.” [Citations.]

[The Court] also consider[s] matters that may be judicially noticed and facts appearing in any exhibits attached to the petition and complaint. [Citations.] We do not, however, assume the truth of “mere contentions or assertions contradicted by judicially noticeable facts.” [Citations.]

After reviewing the allegations of the petition, the accompanying exhibits, and the matters properly subject to judicial notice, [fn.] [the Court] determine[s] whether the petition states a cause of action as a matter of law.

(Id. at pp. 1051-1052.)[2]

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016129: BRIDGES vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 02/04/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 25

Discussion[3]

Defendant demurs to the Complaint on the grounds that, inter alia, “Plaintiffs fail to allege a cognizable claim for racial discrimination under any applicable law[,]. . . Plaintiffs fail to allege that they exhausted their remedies under the California Tort Claims Act, a precondition to filing a complaint against Caltrans[,]” and “Plaintiffs’ allegations are ambiguous, uncertain, and unintelligible, within the meaning of [Code of Civil Procedure] section 430.10(f).” (Demurrer 1:21-2:5.)

The Court addresses Defendant’s arguments in turn.

A. Failure to State a Claim

A complaint must contain a “statement of facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.10, subd. (a).) “This factpleading requirement obligates the plaintiff to allege ultimate facts that ‘as a whole apprise[] the adversary of the factual basis of the claim. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Project CBD.com (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 869, 886.) “‘What is important is that the complaint as a whole contains sufficient facts to apprise the defendant of the basis upon which the plaintiff is seeking relief. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Doheny Park Terrance Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exchange (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1099 [emphasis omitted].)

“It has been consistently held that a plaintiff is required only to set forth the essential facts of his case with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficient to acquaint a defendant with the nature, source and extent of his cause of action.” (Ibid. [emphasis added] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted].) “The facts that must be included in a complaint or petition to properly allege a cause of action are referred to as the essential elements of the cause of action. The essential elements are determined by the substantive law that defines the cause of action.” (Foster v. Sexton (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 998, 1018.)[4]

The failure to meet the foregoing standards subjects a complaint to demurrer for the failure to state a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Weil & Brown, supra, at ¶ 6.127.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016129: BRIDGES vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 02/04/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 25

The Complaint fails to meet these standards. Although Plaintiffs generally allege discriminatory practices by Defendant in its awarding of public contracts, Plaintiffs do not allege the source of the cause of action. For example, Plaintiffs do not allege whether Defendant’s alleged conduct violates a statute, Constitutional provision, or other source of law. Without such information, the Complaint does not provide Defendant with “notice of the issues sufficient to enable preparation of a defense.” (Doe v.

City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 570.) And the Court cannot evaluate whether the essential elements of the cause of action have been sufficiently alleged. Similarly, without identifying the basis for the cause of action, it is unclear what, if any, administrative exhaustion requirements apply and whether such requirements have been adequately pled as satisfied. (See Cornejo v. Lightbourne (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 932, 939.)

B. Uncertainty

A party may demurrer to a complaint on the basis that it is “uncertain.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).) “Uncertain” includes “ambiguous and unintelligible.” (Ibid.) “A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) However, demurrers for uncertainty “are granted . . . if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GLD Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 695 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted].) A complaint need not be “a model of clarity[,]” but it must “contain substantive factual allegations sufficient to apprise [the defendant] of the claims against [it].” (Ibid.)

The Court agrees that the Complaint is uncertain, as defined by the Code of Civil Procedure. As discussed above, Plaintiffs do not allege the legal source of their cause of action for discriminatory practices in Defendant’s project awarding processes. Moreover, although the Complaint was filed by multiple Plaintiffs, the Complaint does not allege what the non-natural person parties are, how they relate to one another, or how each one is connected, if at all, to the twelve subject contracts. Plaintiffs do not allege any facts about when or how the alleged breaches, recissions, or bid denials of the alleged contracts occurred.

///

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016129: BRIDGES vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 02/04/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 25

Conclusion

For the stated reasons, Defendant’s demurrer to the Complaint is sustained. As this is the first challenge to the Complaint, Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend.

Plaintiffs may file a First Amended Complaint addressing the issues raised in the demurrer no later than March 6, 2026. Although not required by statute or court rule, Plaintiffs are directed to present the clerk with a copy of this ruling at the time they file a First Amended Complaint to facilitate its filing.

Defendant may file and serve a response within 30 days of service of the First Amended Complaint, 35 days if served by mail.

Further, the Court notes that a corporation, LLC, and/or partnership must appear through counsel. They cannot appear in propria persona. (See, e.g., Ferruzzo v. Superior Court (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 501, 503 [“The rule is clear in this state that, with the sole exception of mall claims court, a corporation cannot act in propria personal in a California state court.”]; Clean Air Transport Systems v. San Mateo County Transit Dist. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 576, 578 [holding that an unincorporated association is more like a corporation than a natural person and, therefore, can appear in court only through a licensed attorney].) Accordingly, if the First Amended Complaint is filed on behalf of any business entity Plaintiffs, those parties must be represented by counsel. They cannot appear in propria persona.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 is required.

Defendant shall provide notice of this ruling to Plaintiffs and file proof of service of same within five (5) calendar days.

[1] Plaintiffs dismissed the Department of General Services without prejudice on January 22, 2025. [2] The Court sustains Defendant’s objection to the Declaration of Robert L. Bridges filed in support of Plaintiffs’ opposition (Def.’s Obj. No. 1) as it is improper for

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016129: BRIDGES vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 02/04/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 25

the Court to consider such evidence in deciding a demurrer. The Court need not reach the remaining objections since they concern exhibits to the Bridges’ declaration, and the Court has sustained the first objection to the declaration in its entirety. [3] Defendant’s request for judicial notice is denied as the subject material is immaterial to the Court’s decision on the demurrer. [4] California Civil Jury Instructions (“CACI”) or Book of Approved Jury Instructions (“BAJI”) can be used to determine the substantive law in the civil actions covered thereby. “These instructions indicate the elements that plaintiff must prove at trial to recover, and these are usually the same elements plaintiff must plead to state a cause of action.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2025 Update) ¶ 6.121.1.)