Zuri K. Colbert vs. Michelle Callilos (Head of DHHS/CPS County of Sacramento)

Given Plaintiffs’ opposition was again filed in an untimely manner and on the same date that a reply was due, the impermissible 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.

Factual and Procedural Background

34-2021-00301184-CU-CR-GDS: Zuri K. Colbert vs. Michelle Callilos (Head of DHHS/CPS County of Sacramento) 11/18/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint in Department 54

Plaintiffs filed the original Complaint on May 21, 2021, and the First Amended Complaint (“1AC”) on June 10, 2021. The 1AC alleged causes of action for fraud and negligence against the County and its employees based upon alleged inaccurate recordkeeping that conflates Plaintiffs’ names with the names of other individuals.

Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings that was granted without leave to amend on January 18, 2023. On June 28, 2024, the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of dismissal without leave to amend and remanded instructing the Court to grant the motion for judgment on the pleadings with leave to amend.

On October 5, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint (“2AC”) alleging causes of action for intentional and negligent misrepresentation, failure to perform a mandatory duty, breach of California Civil Code section 1714, and violations of the California Constitution, as well as multiple other statutes and regulations. Defendants filed a demurrer, which the Court granted with leave to amend on April 8, 2025.

Plaintiffs then filed the 3AC on April 23, 2025. The operative 3AC asserts causes of action for violations of the California Constitution, breach of Welfare and Institutions Code (“WIC”) section 827, breach of Civil Code sections 1798.82 and 1710, Government Code section 815.6, and violations of multiple sections of the California Department of Social Services (“CDSS”) regulations.

Defendants demur to the entire 3AC on the ground that Plaintiffs have still failed to plead sufficient facts to state any claim against Defendants under any theory.

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.) Extrinsic evidence may not properly be considered on demurrer or on a motion to strike. (Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881; Hibernia Savings & Loan Soc. v. Thornton (1897) 117 Cal. 481, 482.)

For the purpose of determining the effect of a complaint, its allegations are liberally

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) 11/18/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint in Department 54

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 dnoticed. (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.) “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.) 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.)

First Cause of Action for California Constitution Article I, Section 7(A) And Government Code Section 815.6: Failure to Perform A Mandatory Duty Arising From A Statute Or Regulation

Plaintiffs allege the Defendants owed duties to them under California Constitution Article I, Section 7(a); WIC sections 827, 827.10, and 10851(a)(b)(a); California Rules of Court Rule 5.552; CDSS Regulation Nos. 31-225, 19-002, 31-105.116, 31-075.3(a), 21- 203.31; and Civil Code sections 52.1 and 1798.82.

Defendants contend Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action under any of the alleged theories.

To succeed on a cause of action for breach of a mandatory duty, Plaintiffs must establish (1) an enactment imposes a mandatory, not discretionary, duty; (2) the enactment intends to protect against the kind of risk of injury suffered by Plaintiffs; and (3) breach of the duty proximately caused Plaintiffs’ injuries. (Becerra v. County of Santa Cruz (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1450, 1458.)

A mandatory duty is created only when an enactment requires an act that is clearly defined and not left to the public entity’s discretion or judgment. (County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 543, 550–551.) When the enactment leaves

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) 11/18/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint in Department 54

implementation to an exercise of discretion, “lend[ing] itself to a normative or qualitative debate over whether [the duty] was adequately fulfilled,” an alleged failure in implementation will not give rise to liability. (de Villers v. County of San Diego (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 238, 260-61; State Dep’t of State Hosps. v. Superior Ct. (2015) 61 Cal. 4th 339, 350.)

California Constitution Article I, Section 7(a) provides: “A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws . . . ” (Cal. Const. Art. I § 7(a).) Here, Plaintiffs merely allege their records were mixed up with those of another person who happened to have the same name as Ms. Colbert. Plaintiffs have not alleged they were treated differently than a similarly situated group or that they were deprived of any rights without due process of law.

WIC section 827 provides that only a certain class of individuals may inspect a juvenile case file without a court order. (Welf. & Inst Code § 827(a)(1).) This section does not impose a mandatory duty on Defendants that would subject them to liability under California Government Code section 815.6.

WIC section 827.10 provides that a child welfare agency is authorized to permit certain individuals to inspect the records of a minor “who is the subject of either a family law or a probate guardianship case involving custody or visitation issues.” (Welf. & Inst Code § 827(a).) This statute does not impose a mandatory duty on Defendants, nor is it at all relevant to Plaintiffs’ case.

WIC section 10851(a) provides that “[e]ach county shall establish and maintain a case record for each public social services case and shall retain the record for a period of three years.” (Welf. & Inst. Code § 10851(a).) WIC section 10851(b) provides, “the board of supervisors of any county may authorize the destruction of the case narrative portions of the case record that are over three years old in any case file, active or inactive, only after audit by the department or the State Department of Health Services, whichever has jurisdiction over the record.” (Id. at § 10851(b).) This section is irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ action, which does not concern any alleged violations with respect to retention of their case file; rather, Plaintiffs take issue with the County allegedly maintaining an inaccurate case file.

California Rules of Court Rule 5.552 provides a definition for the term “juvenile case file” and outlines the process for petitioning for access to the case file. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 5.552.) It does set forth any mandatory duties owed by Defendants.

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) 11/18/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint in Department 54

CDSS Regulation No. 31-225 provides requirements for updates of case plans for children in County custody. (CDSS Regulation No. 31-225.) This section is irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ action, as there are no allegations that any plaintiff is or was a child in County custody.

CDSS Regulation No. 19-002 merely defines certain “information that is confidential.” (CDSS Regulation No. 19-002.)

CDSS Regulation No. 31-105.116 provides that social workers providing an emergency response to a report of child abuse shall document in the child’s case record “[i]nformation regarding each minor child in the family.” (CDSS Regulation No. 31- 105.116.) This regulation is irrelevant to the instant action.

CDSS Regulation No. 31-075 provides, “[t]he county shall develop and maintain a current case record for each request or referral that requires child welfare services beyond the emergency response protocol.” (CDSS Regulation No. 31-075.1.) CDSS Regulation No. 31-075.3 provides that the case file shall contain certain information. (Id. at No. 31-075.3.) This regulation is irrelevant because Plaintiffs allege they have only been subject to one unfounded referral which was closed. (3AC, ¶ 1, 40.)

Plaintiffs cite CDSS Regulation No. 21-203.31, but this regulation does not exist.

California Civil Code section 52.1 provides, “[i]f a person or persons, whether or not acting under color of law, interferes by threat, intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere by threat, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States . . . may bring a civil action.” (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1(b).) This section does not impose a mandatory duty on government agencies; rather, it provides a private right of action for violation of civil rights.

California Civil Code section 1798.82 provides requirements for “[a] person or business that conducts business in California, and that owns or licenses computerized data that includes personal information . . .” when there is a data breach. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.82(a).) This section is inapplicable to the County, which is not a person or business conducting business in California that owns or licenses such data.

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ demurrer to the first cause of action is

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) 11/18/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint in Department 54

SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

Second Cause of Action Under California Constitution Article I, Section 1, and Government Code Section 815.6

Plaintiffs cite the same statutes and regulations discussed above, arguing that Defendants breached various mandatory duties. For the reasons discussed above, each of those theories fails.

Plaintiff also alleges the County breached Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution, which provides: “All people are by nature free and independent and have alienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”

Plaintiffs allege Defendants “are liable” for a “16 year [sic] deprivation of privacy with failure to notify Plaintiffs of willful decision to maintain unrelated people, unrelated highly offensive criminal acts to children, unrelated perpetrators of child harm in Plaintiffs records.” (3AC, ¶ 52.) Plaintiffs have at most alleged that their records were mixed with those of another person who happened to have the same name as Ms. Colbert. They have not alleged facts suggesting their private information was ever disseminated or that their privacy rights were otherwise violated. Further, nothing in this California Constitutional provision imposes a mandatory duty on either the County or its employees.

Plaintiffs also allege the Defendants have an alleged “disregard for Government Code section 7920.000.” (3AC, ¶ 57.) Government Code section 7920.000 provides: “This division shall be known and may be cited as the California Public Records Act.” (Cal. Gov. Code 7920.000.) This section imposes no mandatory duty on any of the Defendants.

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ demurrer to the second cause of action is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

Third Cause of Action for Violation Of The Tom Bane Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code Section 52.1) and Government Code Section 815.6

To state a viable claim under California Civil Code section 52.1, a plaintiff must allege the defendant “interfere[d] by threat, intimidation, or coercion . . . with the exercise or

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) 11/18/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint in Department 54

enjoyment by [plaintiff] . . . of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or . . . of this state.” (Civ. Code § 52.1.) ”[T]he violence or threatened violence must be due to plaintiff’s membership in one of the specified classifications set forth in Civil Code 51.7 or a group similarly protected by constitution or statute from hate crimes.” (Gabriella A. v. County of Orange (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1268, 1290.)

Plaintiffs allege “the County Defendants are liable for the unconstitutional two-decade failure to disclose the County’s impermissible bias that mixed Plaintiffs [sic] records to a stranger with a similar African name.” (3AC, ¶ 67.) Plaintiffs plead no facts suggesting any of the Defendants committed acts of violence, threats, intimidation or coercion toward them; they merely allege Ms. Colbert’s name was confused with another individual who happened to have the same name.

In addition to their Bane Act claim, Plaintiffs make several references to the same statutes and regulations mentioned in their first and second causes of action. For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiffs’ third cause of action also fails with respect to those sections.

Defendants’ demurrer to the third cause of action is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

Fourth Cause of Action Under California Code Of Civil Procedure Section 1060 and Government Code Section 815.6

Code of Civil Procedure section 1060 provides: “Any person interested under a written instrument, excluding a will or trust, or under a contract, or who desires a declaration of his or her rights or duties with respect to another, or in respect to, in, over or upon property, or with respect to the location of the natural channel of a watercourse, may . . . bring an original action or cross-complaint in the superior court for a declaration of his or her rights and duties in the premises . . .” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1060.) Here, Plaintiffs’ lawsuit concerns the alleged mixture of their identities with another individual. This case does not involve determining rights under written instruments, rights or duties regarding property or a dispute about waterways.

Plaintiffs also refer to the same statutes and regulations cited in their first, second, and third causes of action. For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action similarly fails under these theories.

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) 11/18/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint in Department 54

Defendants’ demurrer to the fourth cause of action is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

Conclusion

Defendants’ demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

A court may sustain a demurrer with or without leave to amend. (Code Civ. Proc. 472a(c).) A demurrer must be sustained without leave to amend absent a showing by plaintiff that a reasonable possibility exists that the defect can be cured by amendment. (Blank v Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The burden of proving such reasonable possibility rests squarely on the plaintiff. (Torres v City of Yorba Linda (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1035, 1041.) Plaintiffs have not met that burden.

Defendants are directed to submit a formal order and judgment for the Court's signature.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or further 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.

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 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.

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) 11/18/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint in Department 54

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