Terrance Nelson, et al. v. Jashanpreet Singh, et al.

II. WHY THE DEMURRER SHOULD BE OVERRULED Section 815.6 has three discrete requirements which “must be met before governmental

entity liability may be imposed under Government Code section 815.6: (1) an enactment must

impose a mandatory duty; (2) the enactment must be meant to protect against the kind of risk of

injury suffered by the party asserting section 815.6 as a basis for liability; and (3) breach of the

mandatory duty must be a proximate cause of the injury suffered.” See San Mateo Union High

School Dist. v. County of San Mateo (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 418, 428-29 (quoting Ellerbee v.

County of Los Angeles (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1206, 1215). The demurrer challenges

requirements (1), existence of a mandatory duty, and (3) proximate cause. These issues are

addressed in turn below.

1 The Court finds that the moving party has complied with its meet-and-confer obligation. Also, the Court grants Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice. Cal. Evid. Code §§ 452(b), (c).

A. Mandatory Duty

Under both 49 USC § 31311(a)(12) and 13 CCR § 2601, the State Defendants are only

permitted to issue CDLs to non-domiciled individuals if they do so in compliance with federal

regulations. 49 U.S.C. § 31311(a)(12)(A)-(B). The applicable regulation is the Interim Federal

Rule which states: “Beginning September 29, 2025, the State must not issue ...unless, at the time

of the transaction, the applicant provides evidence of lawful immigration status...” (Interim Final

Rule, § 383.73(f)(3)(ii)(A), 90 Fed. Reg. 46524 emphasis added). That is the language of direct,

mandatory command. The California regulation mirrors the federal scheme. Under the

regulation, “[t]he department may not issue a commercial driver’s license or commercial

learner’s permit to any person unless the person presents to the department proof of his or her

legal presence in the U.S.” (13 C.C.R. § 2601.) The State language is equally mandatory.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the State Defendants were under a mandatory duty per Gov.

Code § 815.6 to refrain from issuing commercial driver’s licenses to persons without legal status

in the United States.

Defendants’ citation to Brenneman v. State of California (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 812,

817, falls flat. It does not compel a different result but instead by contrast underscores the

mandatory nature of the provisions at issue in this case. Additionally, the State Defendants

appear to have no discretion pursuant to Gov. Code, § 820.2. (See Morris v. County of Marin

(1977) 18 Cal.3d 901.) The immunity granted under section 818.4 was “intended to confer

immunity only in connection with discretionary activities, and not in connection with mandatory

duties that cannot be ignored.” (Corona v. State of California (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 723, 733.)

B. Proximate Cause

This argument presents disputed issues of fact which are not determinable on demurrer.

There are no facts showing that Defendant Singh’s original license would have been still valid on

the date of the incident, that the incident occurred during an intrastate trip, or that Mr. Singh

would have been hired by his carrier without interstate driving privileges. These factual issues

need to be resolved during discovery. The only facts that are actually supported by the Complaint

are that: (1) Defendant Singh was driving under an unlawfully-issued driver’s license at the time

of the collision; (2) he caused the deaths of Plaintiffs’ parents while driving under that license he

never should have had in the first place; and (3) that the wrongful issuance of the license was one

of the causes of the collision.

The Interim Final Rule was succeeded by the Final Rule: Restoring Integrity to the

Issuance of Non-Domiciled Commercial Drivers Licenses (CDL), 91 Fed. Reg. 7044 (Feb 13,

2026) (to be codified at 49 C.F.R. Parts 383 and 384). The Final Rule specifically explains how

the State Defendants’ noncompliance with the regulation caused the collision:

On October 21, 2025, a driver who held a California non-domiciled CDL issued in June 2025 was involved in a fatal crash on I-10 in Ontario, California. Media reports state that the driver failed to stop, rear-ending several vehicles and colliding with others. In total, the incident involved eight vehicles, including four tractor-trailers. There were three fatalities and multiple other injuries. This driver was initially issued a Class A CDL with a “K” restriction, which means the driver was only allowed to drive intrastate, in June 2025.

However, six days before the crash, the SDLA removed the “K” restriction when the driver turned 21, which upgraded his driving privileges. Had the SDLA complied with the IFR (which was still in effect at the time of the upgrade and crash) or the enforcement action which required California to pause issuance of non-domiciled CDLs, it would have prevented the upgrade of his driving privileges. The driver would have been required to return to the DMV (on or after turning 21) to have the “K” restriction removed and upgrade his CDL.

Upon returning for the upgrade, he would have been found ineligible to retain the non-domiciled CDL because he was not in one of the specified employment-based nonimmigrant categories, and consequently would not have been permitted to operate the CMV involved in this crash.

(See RJN, Ex. 3 at 7066.) The Final Rule explicitly notes that this incident represents the precise

risk the Interim Final Rule was designed to prevent.

III. CONCLUSION 1. The demurrer filed by the State Defendants is respectfully OVERRULED.

2. The State Defendants are ORDERED to answer the Complaint no later than June

1, 2026.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: [TENTATIVE – NOT FINAL] Hon. Joseph B. Widman Judge of the Superior Court