JONES vs FOR HIS GLORY FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF DEL PASO, et al.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver

24CV022402: JONES vs FOR HIS GLORY FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF DEL PASO, et al. 05/27/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in Department 8D

and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants First Baptist Church of Del Paso Heights (erroneously sued as For His Glory, First Baptist Church of Del Paso), Ben Rivers, Jovan Agee, Alaya Agee, and Chris Brent’s (“Defendants”) demurrer to Plaintiff Estralita Jones, in pro per, (“Jones”) and Progressive Faith Baptist Church’s (“Faith Baptist”) first amended complaint is ruled on as follows.

Progressive Faith Baptist Church

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that, unlike a natural person, a corporation may not represent itself in court, except in small claims proceedings. (Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284, fn. 5.) The Complaint alleges that Faith Baptist is a corporation. (Compl., ¶ 3.) Because Jones is not a licensed attorney, Jones cannot represent Faith Baptist and may not file papers or appear in court on Faith Baptist’s behalf. (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145-1146 [a corporation may not be represented by any officer or employee who is not a licensed attorney].) As set forth in the Court’s ruling on the concurrently filed motion to strike, on its own motion, the Court strikes the complaint to the extent filed on behalf of First Baptist with leave to amend.

Jones may properly represent herself and her interests. The Court proceeds regarding the demurrer as to Plaintiff Jones’s complaint.

Background

This dispute relates to a Written Agreement for the shared use of Defendant First Baptist Church of Del Paso Heights’ facilities. (See the “Written Agreement for 2020” attached to the Declaration of Estralita Jones, filed June 27, 2025.) Jones filed an initial complaint on November 4, 2024, asserting four causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”); (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (4) destruction of property. (Compl., ¶ 8.) Jones alleges that on or about April 14, 2024,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV022402: JONES vs FOR HIS GLORY FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF DEL PASO, et al. 05/27/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in Department 8D

Defendants wrongfully terminated tenancy without just cause or due process. Defendants changed the locks, and forcefully removed all of the church’s property and placed it outside without proper notice or authority of the law so that the property of Plaintiffs was stolen, given away by Defendants, or otherwise destroyed.

(Compl., ¶ BC-2.) Jones filed her Declaration on June 27, 2025, apparently to supplement the Complaint by providing the underlying Written Agreement. Defendants treat the Complaint as so amended. (Federico Decl., ¶ 6.)

Defendants demur to the Complaint on two grounds. First, that the complaint fails to allege facts constituting a cause of action for IIED or, in the alternative, the IIED claim is uncertain and ambiguous. (Demurrer, at p. 2:4–6.) And second, that Plaintiffs’ request for damages in the first, second and third causes of action are fatally uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible. (Id. at p. 2:7–9.)

Jones opposes the motion, arguing that sufficient facts are pled to state a claim for IIED. (Opp., at pp. 3:21–5:3.) Jones does not oppose Defendants’ argument regarding uncertainty of damages. (See generally, Opp.; Reply at p. 7:4–5.)

Legal Standard

The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the pleading it challenges by raising questions of law. (Salimi v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 216, 219; Nordlinger v. Lynch (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1259, 1271.) “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.” (SKF Farms v. Super. Ct. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.)

For the purpose of determining the effect of a complaint, its allegations are liberally construed, with a view towards substantial justice. (Code Civ. Proc. § 452; Amarel v. Connell (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 137, 140–141; Quelimane Co., Inc. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 43, fn. 7.) In this respect, the Court treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law, and considers matters which may be judicially noticed. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1111–1112.)

A demurrer may be sustained only if the complaint lacks any sufficient allegations to entitle the plaintiff to relief. (Financial Corp. of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 764, 778.) “[P]laintiff need only plead facts showing that he may be entitled to some relief . . . [W]e are not concerned with plaintiff’s possible inability or difficulty in

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV022402: JONES vs FOR HIS GLORY FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF DEL PASO, et al. 05/27/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in Department 8D

proving the allegations of the complaint.” (Highlanders, Inc. v. Olsan (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 690, 697.) A demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pled and the sole issue raised by a general demurrer is whether the facts pled state a valid cause of action, not whether they are true. (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.) The Court draws all reasonable implications and inferences in favor of upholding the complaint. (Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC, supra, 152 Cal.App.4th at p. 1112.)

A defendant may demur to a complaint on the grounds that it is uncertain, ambiguous or unintelligible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430, subd. (f).) Demurrers for uncertainty are sustained when “the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GCL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 695.) But a complaint must only “sufficiently appris[e] defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet” because ambiguities can be clarified during discovery. (Ibid. [quoting Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2].)

Analysis

Demurrer for Uncertainty as to Claims for Damages

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ requests for damages in the first, second, and third causes of action are “uncertain, ambiguous, and speculative in nature.” (MPA, at p. 5:16–27.) Jones does not oppose the demurrer on this ground. (See generally, Opp.)

The Court construes Jones’s lack of opposition as a concession on the merits. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4.) Accordingly, Defendants’ demurrer to the causes of action for breach of contract, IIED, and negligent infliction of emotional distress is sustained.

Because the Court has upheld Defendants’ demurrer on this basis, the Court need not address Defendants’ other ground for demurrer as to the cause of action for IIED.

Disposition

Defendants’ demurrer as to the causes of action for breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress is SUSTAINED.

The Court grants leave to amend. “If the plaintiff has not had an opportunity to amend the complaint in response to the demurrer, leave to amend is liberally allowed as a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV022402: JONES vs FOR HIS GLORY FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF DEL PASO, et al. 05/27/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in Department 8D

matter of fairness, unless the complaint shows on its face that it is incapable of amendment.” (City of Stockton v. Super. Ct. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 730, 747.) Leave to amend is granted as this is Defendants' first challenge to the complaint on which the Court has ruled.

Jones may file and serve an Amended Complaint no later than June 26, 2026.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)