| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
DEMURRER to Amended COMPLAINT
Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery Calendar for Thursday, October 16, 2025, Line 8. 1- DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S DEMURRER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT.
Defendant City and County of San Francisco's demurrer to all four causes of action in the third amended complaint filed by plaintiff Travis Fields is overruled as to the first three causes of action and sustained without leave to amend as to the fourth cause of action.
Liberally construed, the first three causes of action adequately allege viable claims for intentional tort, fraud, and negligence based on the allegations that the City took possession of and later sold Fields' vehicle without giving him an opportunity to object and that Fields did not learn of the alleged illegal sale until some date within the limitations period.
Based on Fields' allegation that the alleged seizure of his vehicle took place six years before this case was filed and requesting judicial notice of a contract that makes no mention of the sale of Fields' vehicle, the City asserts that all of Fields' claims are time-barred and the City can't be liable be liable because its contractor, not it, sold the vehicle.
The City's untimeliness argument fails on demurrer because Fields' claims allege liability based on the sale of the vehicle and the third amended complaint does not show on its face that the sale took place outside the limitations periods.
The City didn't sell the vehicle argument fails because, even if the terms of the contract sought to be judicially noticed were accepted as true, that contract does not preclude the possibility that the vehicle was sold by the City.
Effectively the City seeks to convert this pleading motion into an evidentiary motion such a motion for summary judgment, but California procedure does not allow it.
The fourth cause of action is on a form that is for a motor vehicle negligence case, not a case like this one, and the allegations in that cause of action are entirely duplicative of the third cause of action for negligence and thus the fourth cause of action does not state a claim nor can it be amended to do so.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.)
To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.
Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(301/HEK)