demurrer to the complaint’s first cause of action
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408-882-2210
DATE: May 28, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)
**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**
9:00 A.M. LINE CASE # CASE TITLE RULING # Line 1 25CV464307 Jessica Martinez v. Click LINE 1 or scroll down for ruling. Hyperice Mexico Holdings, LLC et al. Line 2 24CV433040 Jane Doe v. ROE 2 et By stipulation and order, the matter is CONTINUED to October 8, 2026, al. at 9:00 a.m. in Department 10. The parties are ordered to inform the court no later than August 27, 2026, whether this motion and the motion for summary judgment also set for October 8, 2026, will remain as set. The court will prepare the order.
Line 3 25CV468318 Elizabeth Tan v. Plaintiff’s motion to compel deposition of defendant’s person most Volkswagen Group knowledgeable. Notice is proper and the motion is opposed by defendant. of America, Inc., a Defendant’s opposition indicates the deposition occurred in January 2026, New Jersey meaning the motion is moot. Instead of a reply brief, plaintiff filed a Corporation et al. notice that the matter “has been taken off calendar.” Plaintiff is admonished to withdraw moot motions much earlier in the future so that the court’s limited law and motion reservations can be opened for use by other litigants.
The motion is DENIED AS MOOT. The court will prepare the order. Line 4 23CV427200 Walter Kubon et al vs Click LINE 4 or scroll down for ruling. Rosalie Guancione
Calendar Line 1 Case Name: Jessica Martinez v. Hyperice Mexico Holdings, LLC et al. Case No.: 25CV464307
This is an action for products liability and negligence brought by plaintiff Jessica Martinez (Martinez).
The original and still operative complaint, filed in April 2025, alleges two causes of action: (1) strict product liability; and (2) negligence. Both causes of action are alleged against “Defendants,” and this term is not defined in the complaint. The complaint was filed against defendants Hyperice Mexico Holdings, LLC (Hyperice Mexico), Best Buy Stores, LP (Best Buy), and Doe defendants. The only references to Doe defendants are in paragraphs 1, 4, and 5 of the complaint. The complaint alleges that Martinez purchased a “Hyperice Hypervolt Bluetooth Percussion Massage Device, Model Number 53100 038-00” from a Best Buy location in San Jose, California on December 15, 2020.
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?”
Approximately two-and-one-half years later, on May 2, 2023, Martinez “dissected her vertebral artery, causing dizziness, weakness, vomiting, and an ischemic stroke” while using the device. (Complaint, ¶¶ 8-9.) There are no exhibits attached to the complaint.
Martinez filed a Doe amendment in July 2025 under Code of Civil Procedure section 474 (section 474), stating that “Plaintiffs” had “learned the true name for the defendant sued in the Complaint as Doe 1 and hereby substitute the true name of Hyperice Inc. for the fictitious name wherever it appears in the Complaint.” The name “Doe 1” does not appear anywhere in the complaint; the Doe defendants are only referred to collectively in the complaint.
At issue is a demurrer to the complaint’s first cause of action by Hyperice, Inc. (hereafter, Hyperice), which Martinez opposes.
DEMURRER - LEGAL STANDARDS
In ruling on a demurrer, the court accepts as true all properly pleaded material factual allegations but does not accept as true contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. (Valero v. Spread Your Wings, LLC (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 243, 253.) Code of Civil Procedure section 430.60 states that “[a] demurrer shall distinctly specify the grounds upon which any of the objections to the complaint, cross-complaint, or answer are taken. Unless it does so, it may be disregarded.” The California Rules of Court also require that the demurrer itself (distinct from a supporting memorandum) specify the target of any objection and the grounds. (Cal.
Rules of Court, rules 3.1103(c), 3.1112(a), 3.1320(a) [“Each ground of demurrer must be in a separate paragraph and must state whether it applies to the entire complaint, cross-complaint, or answer, or to specified causes of action or defenses.”].)
The court cannot consider extrinsic evidence when ruling on a demurrer. Finally, “points raised in the reply brief for the first time will not be considered, unless good reason is shown for failure to present them before.” (Proctor v. Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1273.)
DISCUSSION
Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a) requires the parties to meet and confer “in person, by telephone, or by video conference” before demurring. The demurring party must file a declaration with the demurrer describing the meet and confer efforts. No declaration was submitted with Hyperice’s demurrer. But because a failure to meet and confer is not a basis for overruling a demurrer, the court will consider Hyperice’s demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(4).)
Hyperice demurs to the first cause of action for strict product liability. Hyperice argues the first cause of action fails to state sufficient facts against Hyperice because “Plaintiff failed to ‘Doe in’ Defendant until after the applicable two-year statute of limitations (CCP section 335.1) had passed, and the matter does not ‘relate back’ to the timely filing as to co-defendant Hyperice Mexico Holdings, LLC.” (Notice of Demurrer at p. 2:7-12; see also demurrer at p. 1:6-10.) In its supporting memorandum, Hyperice argues that Martinez was never genuinely ignorant of Hyperice’s identity.
“Section 474 allows a plaintiff who is ignorant of a defendant’s identity to designate the defendant in a complaint by a fictitious name (typically, as a ‘Doe’), and to amend the pleading to state the defendant’s true name when the plaintiff subsequently discovers it.” (McClatchy v. Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, LLP (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 368, 371-372 (McClatchy) “When a defendant is properly named under section 474, the amendment relates back to the filing date of the original complaint. (Woo v.
Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 169, 176.) Section 474 provides a method for adding defendants after the statute of limitations has expired, but this procedure is available only when the plaintiff is genuinely ignorant of the facts establishing a cause of action against the party to be substituted for a Doe defendant. ‘The question is whether [the plaintiff] knew or reasonably should have known that he had a cause of action against [the defendant].’ ” (McClatchy, at p. 372.) “ ‘ “Ignorance of the facts giving rise to a cause of action is the “ignorance” required by section 474, and the pivotal question is, “did plaintiff know facts?” not “did plaintiff know or believe that [he] had a cause of action based on those facts?” ’ ” (Ibid.; see also Organizacion Comunidad de Alviso v.
City of San Jose (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 783, 795.)
“[A] defendant named in an action by a Doe amendment under section 474 may challenge the amendment by way of an evidence-based motion.” (A.N. v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1058, 1067.) That includes a motion to quash service. (McClatchy, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 375.) Rather than bring an evidence-based motion, Hyperice has demurred.
Martinez’s complaint at paragraph 1 alleges that Martinez is ignorant of the true identity of the Doe defendants. The court must accept that allegation as true on demurrer. Contrary to what Hyperice argues, the allegations at paragraphs 8-9 of the complaint do not conclusively show that Martinez was aware of Hyperice’s identity when she filed her original complaint. On a demurrer, only the face of the pleading may be considered. It is not apparent from the face of the complaint that Martinez knew of Hyperice’s identity.
At most, Martinez may have been aware. A plaintiff does not relinquish her rights under section 474 simply because she has a suspicion of wrongdoing arising from one of more facts she does know. (See McClatchy, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 372) “[I]f the plaintiff is actually ignorant of the defendant’s identity, the section 474 relation-back doctrine applies even if that ignorance is the result of the plaintiff’s negligence.” (Woo, supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at p. 177.)
Hahn v. New York Air Brake LLC (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 895, relied on by Hyperice, is distinguishable. Hahn involved a motion for summary judgment, where the court could consider evidence submitted by the moving party regarding whether plaintiff was ignorant of the true identity of the Doe defendant. By contrast, Hyperice has challenged the complaint with a demurrer, meaning the court cannot consider extrinsic evidence.
Hyperice’s demurrer to the first cause of action on the ground that it fails to state sufficient facts is overruled.
CONCLUSION
Hyperice’s demurrer to the complaint’s first cause of action is overruled.
Hyperice is ordered to file an answer to the complaint no later than July 6, 2026. (Code. Civ Proc., § 472a, subd. (d).)
The court will prepare the order.
- oo0oo -
7