Demurrer
CASE NUMBER: 25CV-0208662 Tentative Ruling on Demurrer: Defendant City of Shasta Lake (“City”) demurs to the First Amended Complaint filed on February 27, 2026 on the grounds that the Second, Third, Fifth, and Seventh Causes of Action fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Demurrer is unopposed.
On May 4, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). Plaintiff did not seek or obtain leave of court to file the SAC, as required by Cal. Code of Civ. Pro. section 472. There is no proof of service of the SAC on file. The City of Shasta Lake is not named as a Defendant in 3
the SAC. The Court finds that the City’s demurrer is mooted by the filing of the SAC. Also on May 4, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Request for Dismissal as to: Kevin Orepeza, City of Shasta Lake, Shasta Lake Sherrif’s Department, and Don D. Davis. The clerk did not enter the dismissal because the form is incomplete. Plaintiff must park either 1.a.(1), or 1.a.(2) indicating whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice.
In light of the SAC not naming the City, and Plaintiff’s filing of the Request for Dismissal of the City, it appears clear to the Court that this Demurrer is moot, and the Plaintiff does not intend to proceed against the City in this action. The parties should appear today to confirm the status of the case.
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. VS. WEBB
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?”