BUTLER vs COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 24CV087957: BUTLER vs COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 06/04/2026 Hearing on Demurrer DEFENDANT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; filed by County of Alameda (Defendant) CRS# 697104252489 in Department 517 Tentative Ruling - 05/15/2026 Keith Fong Defendant County of Alameda’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Defendant County of Alameda’s Motion to Strike is DENIED as moot.

BACKGROUND

On August 21, 2024, Plaintiff Benjamin Butler (“Plaintiff”) filed a pro se complaint against Defendant County of Alameda (“County” or “Defendant”).

Plaintiff is an heir of the decedent, Cecil Leroy Williams (“Decedent”). Plaintiff alleges that on June 23, 2023, the County of Alameda Coroner’s Office collected approximately $13,219 in cash from Decedent and failed to release the funds to his heirs within the required 90-day period. (SAC ¶¶ 7, 13-15.) Instead, Plaintiff alleges that the County initiated probate proceedings for an estate that had already been addressed and closed as a small estate, with the intent to retain the funds for county use rather than releasing them to the heirs. (SAC ¶ 24.)

On November 6, 2025, the Court granted the County’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on December 1, 2025, and a Second Amended Complaint on February 10, 2026.

The SAC alleges (1) Failure to Perform Mandatory Duty; (2) Negligence; (3) Fraud; (4) Conversion; (5) Breach of Fiduciary Responsibility; and (6) Promissory Estoppel.

The County demurs to all causes of action asserted in the SAC. The County concurrently moves to strike Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages and loss of new business income.

LEGAL STANDARD

A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of factual allegations in a complaint. (Title Ins. Co. v. Comerica Bank-California (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 800, 807.) A plaintiff must plead facts as are necessary to acquaint a defendant with the nature, source and extent of her claims to provide defendant with notice of the issues sufficient to enable preparation of a defense. (Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 570.) A court should not sustain a general demurrer unless the complaint liberally construed fails to state a cause of action on any theory. (Kramer v. Intuit Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 574, 578.) On a demurrer, the court accepts the truth of material facts properly pleaded in the operative complaint, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Hacker v. Homeward

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 24CV087957: BUTLER vs COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 06/04/2026 Hearing on Demurrer DEFENDANT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; filed by County of Alameda (Defendant) CRS# 697104252489 in Department 517 Residential, Inc. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 270, 276.) Facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be. (Id. at p. 280, citations omitted.)

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code § 452(d).) Further, the Court sua sponte takes judicial notice of the probate case styled as In the Matter of: Cecil Williams, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. 24PR065007.

DISCUSSION

Procedural Issues The Second Amended Complaint fails to comply with Alameda Superior Court Local Rule 3.27(c) as it is not a searchable PDF. This impedes the Court’s review of the Complaint on the instant motions. Plaintiff must comply with the California Rules of Court as well as this Court’s Local Rules in all further filings with this Court. Documents that are not in compliance with the applicable rules of procedure may result in sanctions, including striking the non-conforming document from the record.

The County contends that Plaintiff’s Oppositions to both the demurrer and motion to strike were untimely filed. As the Court has continued the hearing on the demurrer and motion to strike, and has submitted substantive arguments in its Replies, the Court exercises its discretion and considers Plaintiff’s opposition papers. Government Tort Claim (Third, Fourth, and Sixth Causes of Action)

The County contends that Plaintiff’s Third, Fourth, and Sixth Causes of Action are subject to demurrer because Plaintiff’s government tort claim did not assert such claims, and thus, Plaintiff fails to comply with the Government Tort Claims Act and is precluded from asserting those claims here.

The Government Claims Act establishes a standard procedure for bringing claims against local government entities, such as Defendant. (Hernandez v. City of Stockton (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 1222, 1230.) Generally, no suit for money or damages can be brought against a public entity until a written government claim is presented to and rejected by that entity. (Id.) The purpose of the Government Claims Act is to provide the public entity with sufficient information to enable it to adequately investigate claims and settle them if appropriate, without the expense of litigation. (Id. at p. 1231.)

A government tort claim must fairly describe what the entity is alleged to have done. (Stockett v. Association of Cal. Water Agencies Joint Powers Ins. Authority (2004) 34 Cal.4th 441, 446.) If the claim is rejected and plaintiff ultimately files a complaint against the public entity, the facts underlying each cause of action must have been fairly reflected in a timely claim. (Id. at p. 447.) The complaint is subject to demurrer if it alleges a factual basis for recovery not fairly reflected

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 24CV087957: BUTLER vs COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 06/04/2026 Hearing on Demurrer DEFENDANT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; filed by County of Alameda (Defendant) CRS# 697104252489 in Department 517 in the written claim. (Id.)

Although Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s government tort claim did not assert facts to support his Third, Fourth, and Sixth Causes of Action, Defendant improperly presents extrinsic evidence to support its contentions. A demurrer tests the pleadings alone, not evidence or extrinsic matters. (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.)

As Defendant’s argument relies on extrinsic evidence as opposed to the pleadings and judicially noticeable facts, the demurrer based on the failure to assert facts to support the Third, Fourth, and Sixth Causes of Action in the underlying government tort claim is OVERRULED.

Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel

The County argues that the SAC improperly relitigates issues already adjudicated in the related probate proceedings as to the administration of Decedent’s estate. The County contends that Plaintiff’s claims alleged in the SAC that are based on Defendants’ alleged failure to distribute Decedent’s estate funds to Plaintiff are barred by the final probate determination.

Collateral estoppel requires that when an issue of ultimate fact has been determined by a final and valid judgment, the issue cannot be relitigated between the same parties in any future litigation. (People v. Zavala (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 772, 776-777.) Decrees of probate court in matters within its statutory grant of jurisdiction have the same effect and are supported by the same presumptions of collateral attack as judgments of courts of general jurisdiction. (Estate of Buckley (1982) 132 Cal.App.3d 434, 444.)

In his Opposition, Plaintiff contends that he was the prevailing party in the probate action, and therefore, his allegations here are not an impermissible collateral attack on the final probate determination. The County disputes this characterization of the record in the probate case. In the probate action, on August 30, 2024, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the February 22, 2024 Order for summary administration and defrayal of funeral expenses of last illness. However, there was no further orders after granting Plaintiff’s motion. The County contends that the public administrator then elected to proceed with distribution and issued payment to the heirs. (8/21/24 Final Statement of Public Administrator Under Probate Code § 7660.)

The probate court has general subject matter jurisdiction over a decedent’s property and as such, it is empowered to resolve competing claims over title and distribution of the decedent’s property. (Estate of Kraus (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 103, 114.) As such, it appears that any claims to challenge the administration and distribution of the Decedent’s estate falls within the Probate Court’s jurisdiction.

As Plaintiff disputes the title and distribution of Decedent’s estate funds, his claims are

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 24CV087957: BUTLER vs COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 06/04/2026 Hearing on Demurrer DEFENDANT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; filed by County of Alameda (Defendant) CRS# 697104252489 in Department 517 exclusively within the Probate Court’s jurisdiction and cannot be separately challenged in civil litigation.

The demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED.

As the Court finds that the SAC is subject to demurrer due to the probate action, the Court does not reach the parties’ arguments as to each cause of action and whether Plaintiff has alleged facts to constitute a cause of action.

Leave to Amend

Leave to amend is liberally granted, but the burden is on the plaintiff to show in what manner the complaint can be amended and how the amendment would change the legal effect of the pleading. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) Leave to amend may be denied where amendment would be futile. (Vaillette v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 680, 685)

Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend does not address the probate court’s exclusive jurisdiction of his claims. As such, it does not appear that Plaintiff can replead. On that basis, the Court declines to grant leave to amend.

MOTION TO STRIKE

In light of the Court’s ruling on the demurrer, the Motion to Strike is DENIED as moot.

CONCLUSION

The County’s demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

The County’s Motion to Strike is DENIED as moot.

By or before May 29, 2026, Defendant is ORDERED to submit a proposed judgment. (Blauser v. Dubin (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 918.)

HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING? THROUGH ECOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 p.m. (but by Noon if possible) at least one (1) court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 24CV087957: BUTLER vs COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 06/04/2026 Hearing on Demurrer DEFENDANT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; filed by County of Alameda (Defendant) CRS# 697104252489 in Department 517 through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select Search?

4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select Click to Contest this Ruling?

7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select Proceed? BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4pm (but by Noon if possible) at least one (1) court day before the scheduled hearing. BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required. ZOOM LOG-IN INFORMATION FOR DEPARTMENT 517 IS BELOW. Join ZoomGov Meeting https://www.zoomgov.com/j/16181989812 Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812 One tap mobile +16692545252,,16181989812# US (San Jose) 16692161590,,16181989812# US +(San Jose) Dial by your location +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose) +1 669 216 1590 US (San Jose) +1 551 285 1373 US +1 646 828 7666 US (New York) 833 568 8864 US Toll-free Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812 Find your local number: https://www.zoomgov.com/u/ad6x1ZH23d Join by SIP 16181989812@sip.zoomgov.com Join by H.323 161.199.138.10 (US West) 161.199.136.10 (US East) Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 24CV087957: BUTLER vs COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 06/04/2026 Hearing on Demurrer DEFENDANT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; filed by County of Alameda (Defendant) CRS# 697104252489 in Department 517