DOUGLAS vs VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NORTHERN NEVADA

23CV010857: DOUGLAS vs VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NORTHERN NEVADA 05/13/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to plf's Second Amended Complaint in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to “Public Notice – Civil Division – Wednesday Law and Motion Calendar” any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 8D, located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Julie G. Yap presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing. The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 SIP Address: 16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16113421868 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

23CV010857: DOUGLAS vs VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NORTHERN NEVADA 05/13/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to plf's Second Amended Complaint in Department 8D

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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION****

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Volunteers of America Northern California & Northern Nevada’s (“Defendant VOA” or “Defendant”) Demurrer to Plaintiff Raymond Douglas’s (“Plaintiff”) Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

In July 2016, plaintiff Raymond Douglas (“Plaintiff”) filed a civil action against Defendant VOA. (SAC ¶ 14.) In April 2022, this action was dismissed due to Plaintiff’s failure to bring the matter to trial within five years; a judgment of dismissal was entered on April 7, 2022. (See 3/5/25 Order at p. 1.)

On October 31, 2023, Plaintiff commenced the present action against Defendant VOA. He alleges that in 2015 and 2016 he experienced various forms of battery, theft, harassment by Defendant VOA staff and other shelter residents, and other interference with his rights, including restricting his movement around the VOA shelter where he resided and ultimately was evicted. (See SAC ¶¶ 5, 18-40.)

On April 8, 2024, Defendant VOA filed a motion to set aside the default which had been entered and for leave to file a demurrer to the complaint. Defendant VOA’s motion to set aside the default was granted on August 1, 2024, and, pursuant to the Court’s order, Defendant VOA filed its demurrer to the complaint on August 7, 2024. In response, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on August 27, 2024.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV010857: DOUGLAS vs VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NORTHERN NEVADA 05/13/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to plf's Second Amended Complaint in Department 8D

Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

On September 10, 2024, Defendant filed a demurrer to the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which this Court sustained with leave to amend on March 5, 2025, finding that Plaintiff’s claims were time-barred by the statute of limitations and that the doctrines of delayed discovery and equitable tolling were inapplicable. The Court noted that the FAC included the following allegation in paragraph 24:

On October 31, 2023, the plaintiff filed the above entitled action on the same facts and causes of action as the prior second amended complaint, as the discovery of the actual facts or limitation-triggering information giving rise to and the accrual of the causes of action and rights to sue occurred around April of 2021 against the new defendant, despite dismissal of the prior action solely upon failure to bring that action to trial within the required five (5) year period. Based upon the equitable toll and delayed-discovery rule, in which the plaintiff, hereby, relies, the action, herein, is still timely.

(FAC ¶ 24; See 3/5/25 Order at pp. 1-2.)

The Court held that the delayed discovery rule did not apply because Plaintiff “clearly had back in July 2016 sufficient knowledge of the facts to suspect he had suffered some injury and the existence of some wrongful cause because July 2016 is when he commenced his initial action against defendant VOA, filing a complaint alleging a variety of incidents occurring in the 2015-2016 time period which caused some harm and/or injury to him.” (3/5/25 Order at p. 4.) The Court did not find that allegations regarding the case file supported application of the doctrine, as “the information which plaintiff claims was in his ‘case file’ is of no clear legal significance and plaintiff’s purported discovery of it in April 2021 remains an insufficient basis on which to invoke the application of the delayed-discovery rule with respect to plaintiff’s present lawsuit.” (Id. at pp. 5-6.)

Further the Court held:

In the end, regardless of the fact that plaintiff commenced litigation against defendant VOA back in July 2016, the 1AC at issue here admits that plaintiff was subjectively aware he had been harmed by the conduct of others in the 2015-2016 time period and under California law, a party who suspects s/he has been injured by another’s wrongful conduct cannot wait for the facts to find him/her but must instead go find them in order to file suit. (See, e.g., Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 397-398.) In

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV010857: DOUGLAS vs VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NORTHERN NEVADA 05/13/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to plf's Second Amended Complaint in Department 8D

the case at bar, plaintiff himself knew or at least suspected injury as a result of some wrongful conduct occurring back in 2015-2016 but delayed filing the present action for over seven years until 10/31/2023. Specific details relating the underlying events in 2015-2016 were not necessary to commence a lawsuit since such details may be elicited through pretrial discovery once litigation is filed. (See, e.g., Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., supra, 44 Cal.3d at 1111.) Thus, the 1AC here does not support application of the delayed discovery rule.

(Id. at p. 6.)

The Court also found that application of equitable tolling would not bring the causes of action within the statute of limitation because, at best, the assertion in the FAC and opposition was for tolling of 171 days. Under such assertion, the causes of action would still be outside the statute of limitations. (Id. at pp. 6-7.)

Additional Filings

On February 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the August 1, 2024, Order that granted relief from entry of default and permitted Defendant to file the demurrer to the original complaint. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to vacate on June 26, 2025, took the matter under submission following oral argument, and affirmed its decision on June 27, 2025.

In the interim, Plaintiff filed the SAC on March 19, 2025, and Defendant promptly filed a demurrer on March 21, 2025. On July 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal pertaining to the June 27, 2024 order that denied Plaintiff’s request to vacate the August 1, 2024 order that granted Defendant relief from entry of default and permitted Defendant to file the demurrer to the original Complaint. On October 13, 2025, the Court dropped Defendant’s demurrer pursuant to the stay which resulted from Plaintiff’s appeal.

On February 27, 2026, the Third Appellate District granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss the appeal.

Pending Demurrer

Defendant promptly filed the instant demurrer on March 5, 2026. Defendant now demurs to Plaintiff’s second amended complaint on the grounds that each cause of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV010857: DOUGLAS vs VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NORTHERN NEVADA 05/13/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to plf's Second Amended Complaint in Department 8D

action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiff opposes.

Defendant’s unopposed request for judicial notice is granted for the purposes appropriate for judicial notice. (See Evid. Code § 452, subd. (d); see also Johnson & Johnson v. Superior Court (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 757, 768 [court may take judicial notice of the existence of court documents but not to the truth of the statements contained therein].)

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. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) The purpose of a demurrer is to test the legal sufficiency of a claim. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) For the purpose of determining the effect of a complaint, its allegations are liberally construed, with a view toward substantial justice. (Code Civ. Proc. §452; Amarel v. Connell (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 137, 140-141; Quelimane Co. 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 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; William S.

Hart Union High School Dist. v. Regional Planning Com. (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1612, 1616, fn. 2.)

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.) “Plaintiff need only plead facts showing that he may be entitled to some relief . . . we are not concerned with plaintiff's possible inability or difficulty in proving the allegations of the complaint.” (Highlanders, Inc. v. Olsan (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 690, 696-697.) “[Courts] are required to construe the complaint liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated, given the assumed truth of the facts pleaded.” (Picton v. Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV010857: DOUGLAS vs VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NORTHERN NEVADA 05/13/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to plf's Second Amended Complaint in Department 8D

726.) 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.)

Discussion

Defendant argues that the entirety of Plaintiff’s complaint, including each cause of action therein, is barred by the applicable statutes of limitation. Plaintiff opposes, arguing that none of the causes of action contained in the SAC are barred by the statute of limitations as the result of the delayed discovery rule and equitable tolling.

As noted above, this action follows an earlier civil action by Plaintiff against Defendant, which was dismissed in April of 2023 for failure to bring the matter to trial within five years. The instant matter followed.

Plaintiff’s SAC alleges causes of action for: (1) negligence under Civil Code section 1714(a); (2) interference with exercise of rights under Civil Code section 52.1; (3) “acts of violence” pursuant to Civil Code sections 51.7(b)(1) and 52(b); (4) professional negligence under Civil Code section 1714(a); and (5) denial of rights under Civil Code section 52(b). Since none of the statutes of limitations applicable to the causes of action currently alleged in the SAC exceeds four years (see, Code Civ.

Proc. §335.1 [two years for battery, personal injury]; §338 [three years for statutory liability]; §340 [one year for statutory penalty, false imprisonment, property seizure]; §340.5 [one year for professional negligence of healthcare provider]; §343 [four years for any relief not otherwise provided]), this Court finds that the entirety of the SAC is by its own terms barred by the applicable statutes of limitation because the present action was not commenced until October 31, 2023, far more than four years after the events occurring in 2015-2016.

Plaintiff’s SAC adds additional argument with respect to the delayed discovery rule and equitable tolling. However, the statement of facts is almost identical to Plaintiff’s prior complaint, instead merely changing the dates in which he alleges discovery of certain events. For example, with respect to alleged battery experienced by Plaintiff, he alleges in the first amended complaint that:

At or around the middle of August 2015, the plaintiff had noticed that he had been battered while he was asleep, as his hair was significantly shorter at the front of his head. The plaintiff occupied the higher bed of a two-level bunk, which the higher bed was designated as #3 and the lower bed as #4. Within a few days

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV010857: DOUGLAS vs VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NORTHERN NEVADA 05/13/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to plf's Second Amended Complaint in Department 8D

later, the plaintiff had awakened slightly, around the 11 p.m. curfew, and saw client of bed #4 standing aside the plaintiff’s shins, with a shocked look on his face, holding out an open pair of small scissors in the direction of the plaintiff’s head.

(FAC, ¶ 26.)

In Plaintiff’s SAC, he amends his allegations to state:

In April 2021, the plaintiff discovered that at or around the middle of August 2015, he had observed that he had been battered while he was asleep, as his hair was significantly shorter at the front of his head. The plaintiff occupied the higher bed of a two-level bunk, which the higher bed was designated as #3 and the lower bed as #4. Within a few days later, the plaintiff had awakened slightly, around the 11 p.m. curfew, and saw client of bed #4 standing aside the plaintiff’s shins, with a shocked look on his face, holding out an open pair of small scissors in the direction of the plaintiff’s head.

(SAC, ¶ 19.)

Plaintiff similarly amends his allegations to state that he discovered certain facts in 2021, and then goes on to describe the events which he allegedly experienced in 2015- 2016. (See SAC, ¶¶ 20-32, 34-40.) Plaintiff also specifically alleges that, “[o]n November 17, 2016, the defendant had produced the observation notes, in addition to the plaintiff’s entire client file.” (SAC ¶ 14.) However, he alleges that “he was incapable of understanding the complete meaning of the staff’s observations made in the notes and discovering the factual basis for the cause(s) of action and did not inspect any other aspect of his file.” (Ibid.) The SAC further brings the same causes of actions as the FAC.

In his opposition, Plaintiff argues that his SAC sufficiently alleges both the discovery rule and equitable tolling.

Delayed Discovery

As noted in the Court’s prior ruling on demurrer, under the delayed discovery rule, “a cause of action accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff has reason to suspect an injury and some wrongful cause, unless the plaintiff pleads and proves that a reasonable investigation at that time would not have revealed a factual

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV010857: DOUGLAS vs VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NORTHERN NEVADA 05/13/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to plf's Second Amended Complaint in Department 8D

basis for that particular cause of action.” (Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 803.) Accordingly, plaintiffs are “charged with presumptive knowledge of an injury if they have information of circumstances to put them on inquiry or if they have the opportunity to obtain knowledge from sources open to their investigation.” (Id., at p. 807- 08.) A plaintiff seeking to invoke the delayed-discovery rule must plead facts showing not only the time and manner of discovery but also the inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence. (Id., at p. 808.)

California law is clear that the burden is on the plaintiff to show the requisite diligence and conclusory allegations are insufficient to withstand demurrer. (See, e.g., E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Services (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1319.) Still, a plaintiff need not be aware of the specific “facts” necessary to establish the claim in order to file suit, since “that is a process contemplated by pretrial discovery” which may be conducted once litigation is commenced. (See, e.g., Jolly v.

Eli Lilly & Co. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1103, 1111.)

However, a plaintiff cannot show delayed discovery by amending their complaint to remove problematic allegations or by pleading facts which are inconsistent with the allegations found in the original complaint. (See Tindell v. Murphy (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1239, 1248 [“the sham pleading doctrine prevents a plaintiff from attempting to breathe life into a complaint by omitting relevant facts from an amended complaint that made the plaintiff's previous complaint defective”].)

Here, in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, he clearly alleged that he had sufficient knowledge of the facts which give rise to the current action. (See FAC, ¶¶ 6-20.) Further, Plaintiff must have had some knowledge of these events, given that he commenced an action against Defendant in July of 2016, relying on the same allegations which he brings in his SAC. Moreover, in the earlier action against Defendant, Plaintiff subsequently filed a first and second amended complaint which not only included additional details relating to the occurrences described in the original July 2016 complaint but also included allegations relating to events occurring after the original complaint was filed in July 2016.

Plaintiff cannot now change his allegations to claim that he did not have knowledge of certain event at the time he witnessed them in 2015-2016, in direct conflict with the allegations of his first amended complaint.

Further, the SAC itself ultimately alleges that Plaintiff was aware of the harm which occurred in 2015-2016, which is sufficient to show that the delayed discovery rule does not apply here. Finally, Plaintiff’s SAC alleges that he had access to his “entire client file” as of November 17, 2016.[1]

Equitable Tolling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV010857: DOUGLAS vs VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NORTHERN NEVADA 05/13/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to plf's Second Amended Complaint in Department 8D

To invoke the doctrine of equitable tolling, a plaintiff must establish three elements: (1) timely notice to the defendant; (2) lack of prejudice to the defendant; and (3) reasonable and good faith conduct on the part of the plaintiff. (See, e.g., McDonald v. Antelope Valley Community College Dist. (2008) 45 Cal.4th 88, 102.) In addition, equitable tolling is appropriate only where the plaintiff “has satisfied the notification purpose of a limitations statute” and its application to a particular case must not compromise a defendant’s “significant interest in being promptly apprised of claims against them.” (Id., at pp. 100, 102.)

Further, equitable tolling applies “[w]hen an injured person has several legal remedies and, reasonably and in good faith, pursues one.” (Id., at p. 100.) More recently, the California Supreme Court has clarified that the third element for equitable tolling requires the plaintiff’s conduct to be “objectively reasonable and subjectively in good faith.” (Saint Francis Hospital v. State Dept. of Public Health (2020) 9 Cal.5th 710, 729.) Construing equitable tolling’s third element as containing both an objective and a subjective component “fits the doctrine’s underlying rationales” and the doctrine applies only “in carefully considered situations to prevent the unjust technical forfeiture of causes of action.” (Ibid.)

Similarly to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, the SAC and Plaintiff’s opposition argue that the statutes of limitation governing the causes of action currently alleged were tolled for a total of 243 days. (FAC, ¶ 17; Opp., p. 7:8-11.) However, because the present litigation was not commenced until more than seven years after Plaintiff allegedly suffered various harm and other wrongdoings in the 2015-2016 timeframe and because the causes of action now alleged by Plaintiff are subject to statutes of limitations of no more than four years, the 243-day tolling period claimed by Plaintiff would be entirely insufficient to withstand the present demurrer. Consequently, Plaintiff’s reliance on the equitable tolling doctrine is misplaced and the Court need not consider whether the equitable tolling doctrine is appropriately applied to the instant matter.

Leave to Amend

Leave to amend is DENIED, as Plaintiff has not carried his burden to show that a reasonable possibility exists that the above defects can be cured by amendment. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.App.3d 311, 318.)

Plaintiff has now had two opportunities to cure the defects of his complaint (in this matter) and has been unable to do so. The reasonable inference is that there are no additional facts Plaintiff can allege. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate he can cure the stated defects. (See Rakestraw v. California Physicians' Service (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV010857: DOUGLAS vs VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NORTHERN NEVADA 05/13/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to plf's Second Amended Complaint in Department 8D

39, 43 [stating the opposing party “bears the burden of proving there is a reasonable possibility exists that amendment may cure the defect”].)

If Plaintiff requests oral argument in an attempt to obtain leave to amend on any cause of action, he should be prepared to specifically discuss the new or different facts which may now be alleged in good faith to overcome the deficiencies noted above.

Disposition

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

Defendant's counsel shall prepare an order and judgment of dismissal pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.

[1] Indeed, as noted in the Court’s March 5, 2025 Order, Plaintiff previously admitted

“that his 2016 action was dismissed solely due to his failure to diligently prosecute it, rather than because of some inability to plead facts sufficient to state a cause of action.” (3/5/25 Order at p. 6.)