TAYLOR vs DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

25WM000013: TAYLOR vs DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 12/19/2025 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 21

Tentative Ruling

The following shall constitute the Court’s tentative ruling on Respondent’s demurrer to the Petition for Writ of Mandate, which is scheduled to be heard by the Court on Friday, December 19, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 21. The tentative ruling shall become the final ruling of the Court unless a party wishing to be heard so advises the clerk of this Department no later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day preceding the hearing, and further advises the clerk that such party has notified the other side of its intention to appear.

Oral argument shall be limited to no more than 20 minutes per side.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

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 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.

I. Factual And Procedural Background

As this is a demurrer, the Court considers the allegations pled in the Petition to be true.

Petitioner is an individual residing in Sacramento County, and Respondent is the state agency charged with enforcing the laws and regulations governing the licensing of childcare

25WM000013: TAYLOR vs DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 12/19/2025 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 21

centers in California. (Am. Pet., ¶¶ 6-7.) Respondent affirmed an exclusion order against Plaintiff following a hearing before an administrative judge of the Office of Administrative Hearings. (Id. at ¶¶ 1-2.) For the two allegations upheld, the ALJ relied solely on child hearsay to support each finding. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Petitioner alleges Respondent abused its discretion in adopting the ALJ’s decision, that determined that the subject child hearsay provided “sufficient indicia of reliability,” based on the “time, content, and circumstances of the statement.” (Id. at ¶¶ 5-6.)

Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate ordering Respondent to set aside its exclusion order, or remanding the matter for re-hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings. Petitioner seeks relief pursuant to either Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 or 1094.5.

II. Standard

A defendant may demur to the entire complaint or any of the causes of action within it. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.50(a).) In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint against a demurrer, the trial court considers the properly pleaded material facts and matters that may be judicially noticed and tests their sufficiency. (Cedar Fair, L.P. v. County of Santa Clara (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1158-59.) A court should not sustain a demurrer unless the complaint, liberally construed, fails to state a cause of action on any theory.

Doubt in the complaint may be resolved against plaintiff and facts not alleged are presumed not to exist. (Kramer v. Intuit, Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 574, 578.) In reviewing a demurrer, the Court will not “assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law and may disregard allegations that are contrary to the law or to a fact of which judicial notice may be taken.” (Cochran v. Cochran (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 488, 493.)

The burden is on a petitioner to show in what manner it can amend the pleading and how that amendment will change the legal effect of the pleading. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) “Leave to amend should be denied where the facts are not in dispute and the nature of the claim is clear, but no liability exists under substantive law.” (Lawrence v. Bank of America (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 431, 436 (emphasis added).)

III.

Discussion

Respondent demurs on the basis that: 1) Petitioner cannot state a claim for relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085; 2) Petitioner fails to state facts sufficient to state a claim for relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, as she has only alleged conclusions of law rather than material facts; and 3) Petitioner has not exhausted her

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25WM000013: TAYLOR vs DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 12/19/2025 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 21

administrative remedies as she may bring a petition for reinstatement or reduction of penalty.

A. Evidentiary Citations

The Court notes that Petitioner repeatedly cites to a document attached as an exhibit to a declaration filed in support of the opposition. This is a demurrer, not a hearing on the merits. Accordingly, the Court may only consider properly pleaded material facts in the petition and matters that may be judicially noticed. (Cedar Fair, L.P., supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at p. 1158.) Petitioner did not file a request for judicial notice, nor did Petitioner attach any documents to the petition. Accordingly, the only facts before the Court’s consideration in ruling on the demurrer are those pled in the petition.

B. CCP § 1085

Petitioner acknowledges in her opposition that her claim is one for administrative relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, rather than section 1085. The petition does not actually contain separately pled causes of action, and instead only contains a “summary” an identification of “parties” and a “prayer for relief.” Accordingly, the Court cannot sustain the demurrer with respect to a particular cause of action, as Petitioner has not properly pled such cause of action.

C. CCP § 1094.5

Petitioner argues that she has properly pled a claim for relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, but all supporting factual assertions refer to evidence outside of the allegations pled in the amended petition. While Petitioner argues that she only had to allege the “ultimate facts” forming the basis for her claim for relief, her Petition is almost completely devoid of any such facts. Petitioner does not allege that she worked at a preschool and was excluded from such employment by Respondent’s action. (A fact she attempts to argue in her opposition by improper citation to evidence outside of the petition.)

The Court finds that Petitioner has failed to state a cause of action for relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, because she alleges almost nothing. While Petitioner does not need to “show” that the ALJ’s evidentiary findings were not supported by substantial evidence by her pleadings, she does need to allege the facts underlying her petition.

In anticipation that Respondent may file a second demurrer, the Court finds that a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25WM000013: TAYLOR vs DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 12/19/2025 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 21

“petition for reinstatement” is not an administrative remedy that is a required precursor to the filing of a petition for writ of mandate. The exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine requires “[a]dministrative agencies [to] be given the opportunity to reach a reasoned and final conclusion on each and every issue upon which they have jurisdiction to act before those issues are raised in a judicial forum.” (Sierra Club v. San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Com. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 489, 510.) “Reinstatement” by its very definition is a process by which a person whose “license has been revoked or suspended may petition the agency for reinstatement or reduction of penalty ” (Gov.

Code § 11522.) This procedure does not permit a party to challenge the underlying decision, but rather assumes the correctness of the underlying penalty but requests permission to be “reinstated” or to have the resulting penalty reduced. It appears that Petitioner seeks to challenge the underlying exclusion order, which challenge cannot be made by way of a petition for reinstatement.

IV.

Conclusion

The demurrer is SUSTAINED, with leave to amend. It appears from Petitioner’s argument that she may be able to amend her petition to plead facts sufficient to state a claim for relief pursuant to section 1094.5, and she may be able to state facts sufficient to allege exhaustion of administrative remedies. Petitioner is granted leave to file an amended petition addressing the deficiencies raised in the demurrer as this is the first challenge to the pleadings, and the Petition does not “show on its face that it is incapable of amendment.” (Temescal Water Co. v. Dep’t of Public Works (44 Cal.2d 90, 107 [reversing order sustaining demurrer on failure to exhaust administrative remedies grounds without leave to amend].)

Petitioner may file and serve an amended petition no later than December 29, 2025. Although not required by statute or court rule, Petitioner is directed to present the clerk with a copy of this ruling at the time they file an amended petition/complaint to facilitate its filing. Respondent may file and serve a response thereto within 30 days of service of the amended petition/complaint, 35 days if served by mail.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

In the event that this tentative ruling becomes the final ruling of the Court, the Court’s minute order will be effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25WM000013: TAYLOR vs DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 12/19/2025 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 21