The State of California’s Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint and Motion to Strike
2025CUPP046632: RANDOLPH RAMIREZ vs COUNTY OF VENTURA, et al. 05/28/2026 in Department 43 Demurrer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint
The morning calendar in courtroom 43 will normally begin at 8:45. Please arrive for your hearing no later than 8:30 a.m. The door will be opened before the calendar is called.
The Court allows appearances by CourtCall and Zoom. Refer to the Courtroom 43 webpage for more information about remote appearances. If appearing by CourtCall, call in no later than 8:30 a.m. If you wish to appear by CourtCall, you must make arrangements with CourtCall by 4:00 p.m. the court day before your scheduled hearing. Requests for approval of a CourtCall appearance made on the morning of the hearing will not be granted. No exceptions will be made.
For Zoom appearances, all counsel appearing by Zoom must email the court at Courtroom43@ventura.courts.ca.gov with a simultaneous copy to all other counsel/selfrepresented parties no later than 3:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing. INCLUDE THE PHRASE "ZOOM APPEARANCE ON (DATE OF HEARING)" IN THE SUBJECT LINE OF YOUR EMAIL. The email must identify the person who will make the appearance. You will receive the login information for your appearance in reply to your email. If appearing by Zoom, log into the hearing no later than 8:30 a.m. The Court will transfer you to the meeting room when your matter is called. Additional instructions can be found on the Courtroom 43 webpage. When you log in to Zoom, be sure that your name and the case name are used as your Zoom name. IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW ALL OF THESE INSTRUCTIONS, YOU WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO APPEAR BY ZOOM AT THE HEARING.
With respect to the tentative ruling below, no notice of intent to appear is required. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling you can fax notice to Judge Coats's secretary, Ms. Brantner at 805- 477-8790, stating that you submit on the tentative. Or you may email Courtroom43@ventura.courts.ca.gov with all counsel copied on the email. Do not call in lieu of sending a fax or email. If you submit on the tentative without appearing and the opposing party appears, the hearing will be conducted in your absence. If you are the moving party and do not advise the Court that you submit on the tentative, or you do not appear at the hearing, the Court may deny your motion irrespective of the tentative.
Unless stated otherwise at the hearing, if a formal order is required but not signed at the hearing, the prevailing party shall prepare a proposed order and comply with CRC 3.1312 subdivisions (a), (b), (d) and (e). The signed order shall be served on all parties and a proof of service filed with the court. A "notice of ruling" in lieu of this procedure is not authorized.
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?”
Motion: The State of California’s Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint and Motion to Strike
Tentative Ruling:" The State of California’s Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint is OVERRULED and the Motion to Strike id DENIED. The Second Amended Complaint now
2025CUPP046632: RANDOLPH RAMIREZ vs COUNTY OF VENTURA, et al.
alleges that the green traffic light was affirmatively misleading and no longer maintains that the intersection was missing signage or lighting. These allegations are sufficient to avoid the bar of governmental immunity at the pleading stage. The motion to strike is denied as the language at issue, while arguably superfluous, is not improper as a matter of law.
Defendant shall file an answer to the Second Amended Complaint on or before June 26, 2026
Plaintiff is ordered to serve notice of the Court’s ruling.
DISCUSSION
I. Legal Standard"" "" A defendant must file a demurrer to the complaint within 30 days of service unless extended by stipulation or court order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.40. subd. (a).) The grounds for a demurrer must appear on the face of the pleading or from judicially noticeable matters. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a);"Blank v. Kirwan"(1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) Concerning the legal sufficiency of a pleading, the sole issue on demurrer is whether the facts pleaded, if true,"state’a valid cause of action – i.e., if the complaint’pleads’facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief. (LiMandri v.
Judkins"(1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 326, 339.) It is an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is a reasonable probability that the defect can be cured by amendment. (Schifando’v. City of Los Angeles"(2003) 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1081.)""" "" A general demurrer admits the truth of all factual, material allegations properly pled in the challenged pleading, regardless of’possible difficulties’of proof. (Blank,"supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318.) Thus, no matter how unlikely or improbable, plaintiff’s allegations must be accepted as true for the purpose of ruling on the demurrer. (Del E.
Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co."(1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604.) Nevertheless, this rule does not apply to allegations expressing mere conclusions of law, or allegations contradicted by the exhibits to the complaint or by matters of which judicial notice may be taken. (Vance v. Villa Park’Mobilehome’Estates"(1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 698, 709.) A general demurrer does not admit contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the complaint; facts impossible in law; or allegations contrary to facts of which a court may take judicial notice. (Blank,"supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318.)""
II. Application “A condition is not a dangerous condition within the meaning of this chapter merely because of the failure to provide regulatory traffic control signals, stop signs, yield right-of-way signs, or speed restriction signs, as described by the Vehicle Code, or distinctive roadway markings as described in Section 21460 of the Vehicle Code.” (Gov. Code § 830.4.)" " Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable under this chapter for an injury caused by the failure to provide traffic or warning signals, signs,"markings’or devices described in the Vehicle Code. Nothing in this section exonerates a public entity or public employee from liability for injury proximately caused by such failure if a signal, sign, marking or device (other than one described
2025CUPP046632: RANDOLPH RAMIREZ vs COUNTY OF VENTURA, et al.
in Section 830.4) was necessary to warn of a dangerous condition which endangered the safe movement of traffic and which would not be reasonably apparent to, and would not have been anticipated by, a person exercising due care." " (Gov. Code §"830.8.)" " Both parties agree that’the State is’immune from suit for’a dangerous condition of public property due to the absence of signage and lighting, and the State is not immune if’the allegations include conditions’other than signage and lighting. The fundamental disagreement is whether the complaint alleges’conditions other than signage and lighting."
The Second Amended Complaint has added language stating that the incident occurred in the darkness of the night and provides additional detail as to why the green traffic signal allegedly made the intersection dangerous. The Second Amended Complaint also adds new allegations that the green traffic signal is a concealed trap. (Second Amended Complaint ¶ 8.) The Second Amended Complaint also includes additional allegations regarding concealed traps. The Second Amended Complaint further adds allegations about prior accidents. Generally speaking, the Second Amended Complaint broadens the focus to roadway and intersection, from intersection alone.
Plaintiff relies on’Washington v. City & County of San Francisco,"but in that matter, the plaintiff alleged vision limitations caused by pillars and shadows from the elevated freeway. (Washington v. City & County of San Francisco"(1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1531, 1535.) Plaintiff also relies on’Hilts v. County of Solano, but there the plaintiff plead that the presence of trees, differences in elevation between roadway grades and’adjoining fields constituted the dangerous condition. (Hilts v. County of Solano"(1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 161, 174.)"
There is a fundamental shift in the allegations from the First Amended Complaint to the Second Amended Complaint to now allege that the green signal affirmatively misleads or traps drivers as opposed to prior allegations focused on missing signals or signage. This is sufficient to survive demurrer.
The motion to strike does not establish that any of the challenged content of the Second Amended Complaint is improper and should be stricken. The Court denies the motion to strike.
3