FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, A CALIFORNIA INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE vs SWANIGAN ELITE LLC, et al.

25CV009127: FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, A CALIFORNIA INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE vs SWANIGAN ELITE LLC, et al. 08/12/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Oral Argument will take place on August 26, 2026.

The Clerk shall fax a copy of this tentative ruling to the litigation coordinator. The litigation coordinator shall provide the tentative ruling to Defendant Diego Vernon Lamont Tidwell Jr. within 48 hours. The litigation coordinator is directed to have Defendant available at oral argument on August 26, 2026, at 1:30 pm. Appearance will be by ZOOM. Department 8D Zoom ID is: 161 1342 1868. To appear on Zoom by phone, call (833) 568- 8864 and enter 161 1342 1868#.

Appearance is required.

The Department 8D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 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 on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

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

*** EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN

25CV009127: FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, A CALIFORNIA INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE vs SWANIGAN ELITE LLC, et al. 08/12/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 8D

SACRAMENTO, CA 95814. ALL HEARINGS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant in pro per Vernon Lamont Tidwell Jr.’s (“Defendant”) demurrer to plaintiff Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Interinsurance Exchange’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint is OVERRULED for the reasons set forth herein.

Defendant’s filing indicates that is both an Answer and demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint. While a demurrer is not waived by filing an answer at the same time (Code Civ. Proc., 472a), papers in support of a demurrer must include a memorandum in support of the demurrer. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1010; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1112(a).) The Court OVERRULES the demurrer on this basis alone. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1112(a)(3).)

Defendant’s filing also fails to set forth each ground for demurrer. Rather, the pleading provides “Defendant Vernon Lamont Tidwell Jr, (hereinafter Defendant) Answers Plaintiffs [sic] Complaint filed on April 16, 2025, and Demurrer [sic] to Complaint as follows.” The pleading then sets forth a “General Denial” and thirty three affirmative defenses. However, it does not set forth any grounds for demurrer. Accordingly, Defendant has not set forth any basis for demurrer, and the demurrer is OVERRULED.

Finally, to the extend Defendant attaches a declaration that states that he “was not the driver of any vehicle involved causing damage,” the Court notes that 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.)

For the purpose of determining the effect of a complaint, its allegations 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.) 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.) Accordingly, a demurrer is not the appropriate procedural mechanism to assess the truth of the allegations in the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV009127: FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, A CALIFORNIA INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE vs SWANIGAN ELITE LLC, et al. 08/12/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 8D

Complaint based on Defendant’s declaration.

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