Demurrer to Third Amended Complaint; Motion to strike and dismiss the TAC
2024CLCR028974: AMANDA CASTILLANES vs PUBLIC GUARDIAN OF VENTURA COUNTY 05/27/2026 in Department 21 Demurrer to Third Amended Complaint
Tentative Rulings. Parties and counsel appearing for oral argument should address the tentative decision. Parties may submit on the tentative decision by email, with a copy to all other parties in the matter, to courtroom21@ventura.courts.ca.gov before 8:00 a.m. on the day set for the hearing, with a subject line that includes SUBMISSION ON TENTATIVE, Case Number, Title and Party. If fewer than all parties submit on the tentative, the hearing will proceed, and the tentative ruling is subject to change. The clerk cannot advise if you should still appear or not. The decision of whether to appear for a hearing is to be made by the parties and their counsel. (Dept. 21 Rules & Procedures, p. 4, § II.I.)
The following is a statement of the Courts tentative ruling. The Court may adopt, modify or reject the tentative ruling after hearing. The tentative ruling has no legal effect unless and until adopted by the Court.
Motion:
(1) Demurrer by Defendant Ventura County Public Guardians Office (Defendant or Public Guardian) to the third amended complaint (TAC) (unopposed); (2) Motion by Defendant to strike and dismiss the TAC (unopposed).
Tentative Ruling: Defendants motion to strike and dismiss is DENIED. The Court will accept Plaintiffs late TAC.
Defendants demurrer for uncertainty is OVERRULED.
Defendants demurrer for failure to state a claim is SUSTAINED, without leave to amend. Plaintiff continues to fail to allege facts to show compliance with the claim presentation requirement, or that the requirement is inapplicable. Plaintiff had multiple prior opportunities to correct this defect in response to previous demurrers.
Discussion:
I. Motion to Strike
To begin, Defendant should have filed a motion to strike, and obtained an order granting that motion to strike without leave to amend, before moving to dismiss. (See Gitmed v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 824, 828.)
Assuming arguendo that Defendant is permitted to move to strike and to dismiss in one motion, Plaintiff filed the TAC less than one week after the deadline in the Courts order. It would be
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?”
2024CLCR028974: AMANDA CASTILLANES vs PUBLIC GUARDIAN OF VENTURA COUNTY
unjustified for the Court to completely dismiss the action, with prejudice, under these circumstances.
Simply put, the Court will not strike the TAC or dismiss the case based on the late filing. The Court will instead accept the late filing.
Defendants motion to strike and dismiss is DENIED.
II. Demurrer
A. Uncertainty
A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed because ambiguities can be clarified through discovery. (Khoury v. Malys of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Here, there are no uncertainties in the TAC that cannot be clarified through discovery.
Accordingly, Defendants demurrer for uncertainty is OVERRULED.
II. Demurrer for Failure to State a Claim
1. Claim Presentation Requirement
The Government Claims Act provides that no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action of which a claim is required to be presented . . . until a written claim therefore has been presented to the public entity (Gov. Code, § 945.4) with the statutory time limit (see Gov. Code, § 911.2). Alleging facts showing compliance with the claim presentation requirement is an essential element of the cause of action; failure to allege facts demonstrating or excusing compliance with the claim presentation requirement subjects a claim to a demurrer for failure to state a cause of action. (Willis v. City of Carlsbad (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 1104, 1119; State v. Superior Court (Bodde) (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1239.)
It is true that, since Plaintiff is suing a public entity for monetary damages, she must allege facts to show compliance with the claim presentation requirement. Plaintiff fails to allege compliance with the Government Claims Act.
As Defendant correctly states, Plaintiff cannot now comply with the claim presentation requirement because the time to do so has passed. (See Gov. Code, § 911.2 [applying a 6-month time limit to present a government claim, followed by a 1-year statute of limitations to commence litigation after a presented claim has been denied].) Defendant is also correct that this defect was identified in two prior demurrers to the FAC and SAC, yet Plaintiff failed to allege facts in the TAC to show compliance with the claim presentation requirement.
In short, the TAC continues to fail to allege compliance with the claim presentation requirement. This same defect was part of the basis for the prior order sustaining the demurrer to the FAC, with leave to amend, and the prior order sustaining the demurrer to the SAC, with leave to amend. Plaintiffs previous opposition to the demurrer to the SAC suggested she might seek to allege equitable tolling or facts to show that the claim presentation requirement is inapplicable; however, the TAC does not include any such allegations.
2024CLCR028974: AMANDA CASTILLANES vs PUBLIC GUARDIAN OF VENTURA COUNTY
Plaintiff has not identified how she could amend the TAC to cure this defect. She has had two prior opportunities to cure the defect in response to demurrers. In the TAC, Plaintiff does not attempt to allege facts to support the theories she proposed in her opposition to the demurrer to the SAC, despite being given an opportunity to do so.
In light of the foregoing, Defendants demurrer for failure to state a claim to the TAC as a whole, and each cause of action, is SUSTAINED, without leave to amend.
2. Sufficiency of Allegations
Since the demurrer will be sustained based on Plaintiffs failure to allege compliance with the Government Claims Acts claim presentation requirement, the additional arguments challenging the sufficiency of the allegations warrant no further discussion.
That being said, the TAC fails to allege any resulting damage to Plaintiff. Plaintiff only alleges resulting damage to her mother. Plaintiffs mother is not a party to this case. Plaintiff fails to allege facts to show that she has standing to bring this case on behalf of her mother. For this additional reason, Plaintiff has failed to state any viable cause of action.
III.
Conclusion
Defendants motion to strike and dismiss is DENIED. The Court will accept Plaintiffs late TAC.
Defendants demurrer for uncertainty is OVERRULED.
Defendants demurrer for failure to state a claim is SUSTAINED, without leave to amend. Plaintiff continues to fail to allege facts to show compliance with the claim presentation requirement, or that the requirement is inapplicable. Plaintiff had multiple prior opportunities to correct this defect in response to previous demurrers.
3