DEMURRER to Amended COMPLAINT
Matter on calendar for Thursday, May 21, 2026, Line 7, DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO's DEMURRER to 1ST Amended COMPLAINT.
The City and County of San Francisco's demurrer to the first amended complaint is overruled. Plaintiff Jeffrey Bayer's first amended complaint (FAC) states a single cause of action for "deprivation of rights" arising out of his alleged sexual assault by a police officer.
The City demurs on the basis of the Government Claims Act's claim-presentation requirement. Government Code, 945.9, subdivision (a), states that "[a] claim arising out of an alleged sexual assault by a law enforcement officer if the alleged assault occurred while the officer was employed by a law enforcement agency is exempted from all state and local government claim presentation requirements." Bayer states a single cause of action that arises out of such an event. He has adequately pled compliance with the Government Claims Act.
The City contends that it cannot be liable for an injury Bayer suffered while he was detained in jail. Bayer does not plead in the FAC that he was detained, and the court cannot assume the fact.
The City contends that Bayer's claims are barred by applicable statutes of limitations. On a pleadings motion, the court accepts all pleaded facts as true and liberally construes the complaint. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Code Civ. Proc., 452.)
Similarly, the court cannot resolve the City's claim preclusion challenge at the pleadings stage. The court cannot find as a matter of fact that Bayer is alleging the same claims as he alleged in his earlier federal causes of action.
The City contends the FAC is uncertain, ambiguous, and unintelligible. This is a disfavored ground for demurrer and the court has previously explained that the factual allegations are specific enough for this stage of the proceeding.
The City contends that the FAC fails to state a claim. The court previously addressed this ground for demurrer as well and rejects it for the same reasons as stated in its order of January 27, 2026.
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/CVA). | |