Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint
34-2021-00301184-CU-CR-GDS: Zuri K. Colbert vs. Michelle Callilos (Head of DHHS/CPS County of Sacramento) 04/08/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint in Department 54
Tentative Ruling
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendants County of Sacramentos, Michelle Callejas (erroneously sued as Michelle Callilos), Lisa Wullenwabers (erroneously sued as Lisa Wallenwaber), and Zackary Kollross (erroneously sued as Zachary Kollross) (collectively referred to as Defendants), demurrer to Plaintiffs, pro per, Nafisah Timmons and Zuri K. Colberts ("Plaintiffs") Second Amended Complaint (SAC) is UNOPPOSED and SUSTAINED with leave to amend.
Moving party states the incorrect address in its Notice of Demurrer. The correct address for Departments 53/54 of the Sacramento County Superior Court is 813 6th Street, Sacramento, California 95814. Moving partys counsel is directed to contact opposing parties forthwith to advise counsel of Department 53/54s correct address.
Plaintiffs initiated this action on May 21, 2021. In the operative SAC, Plaintiffs generally allege that the County has maintained inaccurate records that conflate Ms. Colberts name with the name of another, unrelated individual with the same first and last name. (SAC ¶ 14.) Plaintiffs allege that the unrelated person with whom their records have been merged is associated with criminal activity, including instances of physical and sexual child harm, and due to the inaccurate recordkeeping, Plaintiffs have become associated with the same criminal activity. (SAC ¶ 2.)
Plaintiffs allege causes of action for: (1) Civil Code section 1710: Intentional or Negligent Misrepresentation and Government Code Section 815.6, (2) Civil Code section 1709 and Government Code Section 815.6, (3) Civil Code section 1714 and Government Code Sections 8202 through 823, (4) California Constitution Article I, Section 7 and Government Code Section 815.6, and (5) California Constitution Article I, Section 1, and Government Code Section 815.6.
The Court observes that Plaintiffs filed an opposition, more than thirty pages in length, just one Court day prior to the hearing in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1005. This is not the first time that Plaintiffs have failed to timely file their papers. Indeed, this Court recently admonished Plaintiffs for failing to file and serve their motion within the minimum notice period required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b). (See January 22, 2025 Minute Order.)
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?”
34-2021-00301184-CU-CR-GDS: Zuri K. Colbert vs. Michelle Callilos (Head of DHHS/CPS County of Sacramento) 04/08/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint in Department 54
length of the opposition, and that this is not the first time Plaintiffs have disregarded filing deadlines, the Court, in its discretion, declines to consider the extremely late opposition.
Accordingly, Defendants demurrer is effectively unopposed. The Court construes Plaintiffs failure to oppose the demurrer as a concession on the merits. (D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4 [where nonmoving party fails to oppose a ground for a motion 'it is assumed that [nonmoving party] concedes' that ground].) The demurrer is sustained for the reasons stated in Defendants memorandum of points and authorities. Nonetheless, as this demurrer is Defendants second challenge to the complaint, the Court grants Plaintiffs leave to amend.
Plaintiffs may file and serve a third amended complaint (TAC) by no later than April 22, 2025. Response is to be filed and served within 30 days thereafter, 35 days if the TAC is served by mail. Although not required by any statute or rule of court, Plaintiffs are requested to attach a copy of the instant minute order to the TAC to facilitate the filing of the pleading.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.
NOTICE:
Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:
To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you 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 and advise opposing counsel. 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.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2021-00301184-CU-CR-GDS: Zuri K. Colbert vs. Michelle Callilos (Head of DHHS/CPS County of Sacramento) 04/08/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint in Department 54
Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.
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 Courts 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 Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.