MARK MAJOR VS. MR. BRANDON RILEY

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC26632835 - May 26, 2026 Hearing date: May 26, 2026 Case number: CGC26632835 Case title: MARK MAJOR VS. MR. BRANDON RILEY Case Number: | | CGC26632835 | Case Title: | | MARK MAJOR VS. MR. BRANDON RILEY | Court Date: | | 2026-05-26 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | DEFENDANTS DEMURRER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for May 26, 2026. Line 7. DEFENDANTS DEMURRER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

Defendants demur pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e). The issue under section 430.10(e) is, taking the facts properly pleaded and properly noticed as true, does the challenged cause of action necessarily fail to state a cause for relief. (See Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e); Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)

In assessing whether the complaint states a cause of action, the court accepts all properly pleaded material facts, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Minton v. Dignity Health (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1155, 1161.) "[I]f, on consideration of all facts stated, it appears that plaintiff is entitled to any relief against defendant, the complaint will be held good, though facts may not be clearly stated, or may be intermingled with a statement of other facts irrelevant to cause of action shown, or though plaintiff may demand relief to which he is not entitled under facts alleged." (Augustine v.

Trucco (1954) 124 Cal.App.2d 229, 236, quoting Matteson v. Wagoner (1905) 147 Cal. 739, 742.) The court liberally construes the complaint per Code of Civil Procedure section 452 and plaintiff must merely allege "[a] statement of the facts...in ordinary and concise language." (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.10(a)(1).)

To seek declaratory relief, a plaintiff must allege "an actual, present controversy over a proper subject." (DeLaura v. Beckett (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 542, 545.) "One cannot analyze requested declaratory relief without evaluating the nature of the rights and duties that plaintiff is asserting, which must follow some recognized or cognizable legal theories that are related to subjects and requests for relief that are properly before the court." (D. Cummins Corp. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.)

Defendant contends Plaintiff fails to allege the existence of any actual present controversy sufficient to support declaratory relief. The Court agrees. Plaintiff's claim is premised on California Government Code sections 420 and 430 through 436 which govern the display and use of flags at courthouses and other public buildings. However, Plaintiff identifies no provision within those statutes supporting the contention that the presence of gold fringe on a courtroom flag alters the jurisdiction of the court, converts the proceeding into a military tribunal, or otherwise affects the legality of the proceedings. The Complaint therefore fails to identify any cognizable legal right or duty giving rise to an actual controversy appropriate for declaratory relief.

Rather, the allegations rest on a legally frivolous premise repeatedly rejected by California courts. In People v. Weber (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1041, 1051, the defendant similarly argued that the presence of fringe on the courtroom flag rendered the proceeding a military court-martial. The Court of Appeal rejected the argument outright, explaining that the defendant's "objections about the fringe on the flag and other frivolous points were designed to derail the proceedings" and did not put forth evidence that he actually believed he was being court martialed. (Id. at p. 1054.)

Plaintiff's allegations here suffer from the same defect. The asserted controversy is not grounded in any recognized legal theory and therefore cannot support a claim for declaratory relief. Accordingly, the demurrer to the cause of action for declaratory relief is sustained with leave to amend. =(501/DWH) | |