CORRAL vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES

25CV018926: CORRAL vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES 08/19/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages 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 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:

25CV018926: CORRAL vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES 08/19/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages in Department 8C

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV018926: CORRAL vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES 08/19/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages in Department 8C

THIS NEW LOCATION***

Defendant California Department of Developmental Services’ (“CDDS”) demurrer to Plaintiff David Corral’s (“Plaintiff”) complaint is ruled upon as follows.

Background

Plaintiff alleges he was employed by CDDS and that, after an accusation against him was determined to be unsubstantiated, Plaintiff and CDDS entered into a written Settlement Agreement in or about October 2015. Plaintiff alleges CDDS agreed to remove negative or damaging information from Plaintiff’s personnel file and to refrain from disclosing such information to third parties. Plaintiff alleges CDDS nonetheless disclosed false and damaging information to third parties, including potential employers, and that Plaintiff suffered damages. Plaintiff alleges causes of action for (1) defamation, (2) breach of contract, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress, and (5) economic damages.

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

1. The First Cause of Action (“Defamation”) is uncertain and does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant. Further, Plaintiff has failed to plead with particularity facts sufficient to show his cause of action against Defendant, a government entity, lies outside the breadth of any applicable statutory immunity.

2. The Second Cause of Action (“Breach of Contract”) is uncertain and does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant.

3. The Third Cause of Action (“Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress”) is uncertain and does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant. Plaintiff has failed to plead with particularity facts sufficient to show his cause of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV018926: CORRAL vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES 08/19/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages in Department 8C

action against Defendant, a government entity, lies outside the breadth of any applicable statutory immunity. Plaintiff further fails to allege any conduct by Defendant that was outrageous and extreme, and which goes beyond all possible bounds of decency.

4. The Fourth Cause of Action (“Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress”) is uncertain and does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant. Plaintiff has failed to plead with particularity facts sufficient to show his cause of action against Defendant, a government entity, lies outside the breadth of any applicable statutory immunity. Plaintiff further fails to allege any conduct by Defendant was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff serious emotional distress.

5. The Fifth Cause of Action for (“Economic Damages”) is uncertain, does not state sufficient facts to bring a viable claim against Defendant, and does not constitute a separate cause of action.

(Notice, 2:8-26.)

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV018926: CORRAL vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES 08/19/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages in Department 8C

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

In its memorandum of points and authorities, CDDS argues that Plaintiff’s compliant is barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Plaintiff previously filed in Tulare County and Alameda County two near-identical lawsuits involving the same parties, and the same claims, on the same grounds as presented here - and those prior lawsuits were decided against Corral. (See Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”), Exhibit C – Order granting demurrer issued by Tulare Superior Court on January 31, 2022, RJN Exhibit E – Judgment of Dismissal Issued by Tulare Superior Court on May 31, 2024.) CDDS did not identify res judicata as one of the grounds for demurrer in its Notice of Demurrer.

CDDS also argues in its memorandum of points and authorities that Plaintiff’s claims are barred because Plaintiff failed to submit a pre-litigation Government Tort Claim for the present lawsuit, and that failure is fatal to his claim pursuant to Government Code section 911.2. Here again, however, CDDS did not identify Plaintiff’s alleged failure to submit a pre-litigation Government Tort Claim as one of the grounds for demurrer in its Notice of Demurrer.

Finally, CDDS argues that Plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient facts to constitute viable causes of action for defamation, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, as well as “economic damages,” which is improperly pled as a fifth and separate cause of action. Unlike res judicata and failure to file a pre-litigation Government Tort Claim, the Notice does identify the failure

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV018926: CORRAL vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES 08/19/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages in Department 8C

to plead sufficient facts as one of the grounds for demurrer.

In opposition to the motion, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend, arguing that if the Court deems his complaint deficient, he can solve any deficiencies by alleging that the current claims include acts by CDDS that occurred after his previous lawsuits, adequate government claim presentation, additional specificity to his claims, and requests leave to amend to incorporate the economic-damage allegations, currently pled as a standalone cause of action, into the substantive causes of action.

Each ground for demurrer must be identified in a separate paragraph and must state whether it applies to the entire complaint or to a specified cause of action. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1320(a).) Since the grounds for demurrer identified in CDDS’s Notice do not include res judicata and failure to file a pre-litigation Government Tort Claim, the Court declines to consider those grounds when ruling on the demurrer.

However, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to constitute any of the causes of action alleged. CDDS’s demurrer to each of Plaintiff’s causes of action is therefore SUSTAINED on the ground that they do not state facts sufficient to support the cause of action.

Since this is the first attack on the complaint, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend.

Disposition

CDDS’s demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

Plaintiff may file and serve a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) not later than August 31, 2026.

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