BARROCA vs HAYWARD AREA RECREATION PARK DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY

26CV168728: BARROCA vs HAYWARD AREA RECREATION PARK DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY 08/20/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint; filed by Hayward Area Recreation Park District, a Public Entity (Defendant) CRS# 556164366045 in Department 15

Tentative Ruling - 08/17/2026 Peter Borkon

Defendant Hayward Area Recreation Park District (“District”) demurs to the Complaint of Plaintiff Robert Barroca (“Plaintiff”). For the reasons discussed below, the demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

PROCEDURAL ISSUES

This matter was originally set for hearing on 7/30/2026. The Court did not receive a timely opposition; on 7/27/2026, however, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to accept and consider a late-filed opposition, and continued the matter to 8/20/2026. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s opposition and Defendant’s reply.

LEGAL STANDARD

A demurrer tests whether a complaint alleges facts sufficient tostatea cause of action under any possible legal theory. (Gutierrez v.CarmaxAuto Superstores California(2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1234, 1244.)On demurrer, all material facts properly pleaded are considered as if theyaretrue, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. (Lauckhartv. El Macero Homeowners Association(2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 889, 898.) Any defects must beapparenton the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.)

DISCUSSION

For purposes of demurrer, the Court accepts the truth of the factual allegations. On 1/30/2025, Plaintiff saw an off-leash dog running around Meek Estate Park (“Meek”) in Hayward, California. Plaintiff confronted the dog’s owner and was physically assaulted. Although Plaintiff has complained in the past to District park rangers that dogs permitted to roam off-leash at Meek have attacked leashed dogs, neighborhood cats, and wildlife, the District has not enforced leash laws, creating a dangerous and unsafe condition for Meek visitors. Plaintiff asserts causes of action against the District for negligence and dangerous condition of public property.

Negligence

“The general rule in California is sovereign immunity. Public entities have liability for injury only when that liability has been assumed by statute.” (Davis v. City of Pasadena (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 701, 703, citing Government Code § 815.) Plaintiff’s negligence claim is subject to demurrer because it does not identify an underlying statute that would waive the District’s immunity. The demurrer to Plaintiff’s first cause of action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO 26CV168728: BARROCA vs HAYWARD AREA RECREATION PARK DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY 08/20/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint; filed by Hayward Area Recreation Park District, a Public Entity (Defendant) CRS# 556164366045 in Department 15 AMEND to identify a statutory basis for this claim.

Dangerous Condition of Public Property

Plaintiff alleges that the ongoing presence of uncontrolled and unleashed dogs constituted a dangerous condition of public property. Under Government Code section 835, a public entity may be liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition. Section 830 defines a “dangerous condition” as “a condition of property that creates a substantial (as distinguished from a minor, trivial or insignificant) risk of injury when such property or adjacent property is used with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used.” (Gov.

Code § 830(a); see also Davis, 42 Cal.App.4th at 704.) “To state a claim against a public entity under the statute, a plaintiff must plead: ‘(1) a dangerous condition existed on the public property at the time of the injury; (2) the condition proximately caused the injury; (3) the condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury sustained; and (4) the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition of the property in sufficient time to have taken measures to protect against it.’” (Hacala v.

Bird Rides, Inc. (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 292, 307.)

“A public entity may be liable for a dangerous condition of public property even where the immediate cause of plaintiff's injury is a third party's negligent or illegal act if some physical characteristic of the property exposes its users to increased danger from third party negligence or criminality.” (Cerna v. City of Oakland (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1340, 1348.) Harmful third party conduct alone is insufficient. “[T]hird party conduct, by itself, unrelated to the condition of the property, does not constitute a ‘dangerous condition’ for which a public entity may be held liable.” (Ibid. [some internal quotation marks omitted].) “There must be a defect in the physical condition of the property and that defect must have some causal relationship to the third party conduct that injures the plaintiff.” (Ibid.)

A liberal construction of the pleading does not, as Plaintiff argues, overcome demurrer to this cause of action. Plaintiff’s claim is insufficient because it alleges only third party conduct (noncompliant dog owners) and no physical defect in the property. Accordingly, the demurrer to the second cause of action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff may amend the Complaint, if possible, to allege facts that satisfy this pleading standard.

Immunity

The District argues that it is immune from liability because Plaintiff’s claims arise from the alleged failure to enforce leash ordinances at Meek. Plaintiff argues that immunity does not apply because the gravamen of the Complaint is a claim for dangerous condition of public property. As discussed above, the Complaint asserts two causes of action: negligence and dangerous condition of public property. As discussed above, Plaintiff has not adequately stated a claim for dangerous condition of public property under section 835. To the extent that Plaintiff’s claims arise from the failure to enforce leash laws, public employees and public entities are not

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV168728: BARROCA vs HAYWARD AREA RECREATION PARK DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY 08/20/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint; filed by Hayward Area Recreation Park District, a Public Entity (Defendant) CRS# 556164366045 in Department 15 liable for an injury caused by adopting or failing to adopt or enforce a law. (Gov. Code §§ 818.2, 821.) Section 818.2 was intended to protect the discretion of law enforcement officers in carrying out their duties. (Morris v. County of Marin (1997) 18 Cal.3d 901, 916.) If, however, the duty at issue is mandatory rather than discretionary, immunity may not apply.

Thus, the demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND the Complaint to allege that District employees failed to carry out a mandatory duty, if possible to do so consistent with CCP section 128.7.

ORDER

The demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff shall file and serve the First Amended Complaint by 9/4/2026.

If this tentative ruling is contested, the Court will hear argument at 9:30 a.m. on August 24, 2026.