OSTENBERG vs LEHMANN, et al.

25CV004232: OSTENBERG vs LEHMANN, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to First Amended Complaint 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:

25CV004232: OSTENBERG vs LEHMANN, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to First Amended Complaint 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 THIS NEW LOCATION***

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV004232: OSTENBERG vs LEHMANN, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to First Amended Complaint in Department 8C

Defendants Robert Lehmann and Karyn S. Lehmann, in their capacities as Co-Trustees of the Robert & Karyn Lehmann Family Trust’s (collectively, “Defendants”) demurrer to the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) of plaintiff Clint Ostenberg, as Trustee of the Clint Ostenberg Trust, dated November 3, 2021 (“Plaintiff”) is ruled upon as follows.

Plaintiff initially filed the Verified Complaint on February 21, 2025, alleging causes of action for: (1) quiet title; (2) quiet title: prescriptive easement; (3) equitable easement; (4) negligence; and (5) declaratory relief. Generally, the action is a boundary dispute in the residential neighborhood of Boulevard Park in Sacramento. The “disputed land” is a 3.3 foot wide strip on Defendants’ property, as it runs against Plaintiff’s property’s rear. (Comp. ¶ 15; FAC ¶ 15.)

Defendants demurred to the Complaint as to each cause of action.

The Court found that Plaintiff, as a practical matter, made a claim of ownership over the disputed land against all others, including Defendants and concluded that Plaintiff’s prescriptive easement claim was tantamount to a claim of adverse possession, but without allegations of the requisite element of paying taxes. On this basis, the Court sustained the demurrer to Plaintiff’s prescriptive easement claim, with leave to amend. (October 9, 2025 Minute Order.)

The Court also found that a defendant doesn’t owe a duty to protect a plaintiff against third party conduct unless there exists a special relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff, and concluded that Plaintiff failed to allege a special relationship that would give rise to a duty to protect against a third party’s criminal conduct. On this basis, the Court sustained Defendants’ demurrer to the negligence claim, with leave to amend. (October 9, 2025 Minute Order.)

The Court overruled the demurrer as to the third cause of action for equitable easement and the fifth cause of action for declaratory relief. (October 9, 2025 Minute Order.)

On October 23, 2-25, Plaintiff filed the FAC, which again alleged causes of action for prescriptive easement and negligence.

Defendants now demurrer to the FAC “on the grounds that the first and third causes of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV004232: OSTENBERG vs LEHMANN, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to First Amended Complaint in Department 8C

action therein, for prescriptive easement and negligence, respectively, fail to allege sufficient facts in support thereof.” (Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer, 2:5-7.)

Defendants emphasize that the FAC does not plead any additional facts or operative allegations to cure the deficiencies outlined by the Court’s October 9, 2025 Order. Plaintiff opposes the motion, but does not refute this central argument.

As Plaintiff has not added any materials facts or allegations as to overcome the deficiencies that were present in Plaintiff’s initial Complaint, Defendants’ demurrer to the FAC’s first cause of action for prescriptive easement and third cause of action for negligence is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)