WILLIAMS vs ALBARRAN, et al.

25CV152943: WILLIAMS vs ALBARRAN, et al. 06/05/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Answer; filed by PASHON WILLIAMS (Plaintiff) CRS# 044785260804 in Department 520

Tentative Ruling - 06/05/2026 Jamilah A. Jefferson

The Demurrer filed by PASHON WILLIAMS on 01/26/2026 is Sustained.

The Demurrer of Plaintiff Pashon Williams (“Plaintiff”) to Defendants Elier Albarran, Jr. and California Highway Patrol (“Defendants”)’s Answer is SUSTAINED.

It is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to the Second through Twenty-Fourth Affirmative Defenses.

It is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the First and Twenty-Fifth Affirmative Defenses.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Although not properly set forth in a separate document, Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice is granted as to the Complaint, which consist of California court records. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d); Oppo., p. 2:11, fn. 2.) However, the Court does not take judicial notice of the truth of any of the facts asserted in the matters noticed. (See Fogel v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1413 n. 7; Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 875, 882.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DISCUSSION

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that a demurrer to an answer is rarely productive, particularly where the basis for the demurrer is that the affirmative defenses are no more than legal theories or conclusion. It is well settled that an answer alleging affirmative defenses need only plead ultimate facts (e.g., Welch v. Derian (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 750, 754) and there is a fine line between ultimate facts and mere conclusions of law. (See, e.g., Bank of Italy v. Wetzel (1927) 82 Cal.App. 240, 243.) Moreover, the sufficiency of an answer is considered in the context of the allegations of the complaint. (South Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 733.)

Here, the Complaint provides facts that may warrant some of the foregoing affirmative defenses. In any event, there is generally no prejudice to these affirmative defenses since any residual 25CV152943: WILLIAMS vs ALBARRAN, et al. 06/05/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Answer; filed by PASHON WILLIAMS (Plaintiff) CRS# 044785260804 in Department 520 uncertainty in the pleading can be resolved with appropriate discovery requests.

Nevertheless, the Demurrer to the Answer’s First Affirmative Defense (failure to state a claim) and the 25th (reservation of affirmative defenses) ‘affirmative defense’ are SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND because they are not affirmative defenses.

At this stage in the litigation, Defendants may not be aware of all facts underlying Plaintiff’s claims, and discovery is, as they assert, likely required to inform Defendants’ full understanding of the case at issue. Although Defendants may be asserting generally appropriate affirmative defenses otherwise, they fail to allege facts to establish the basis for these affirmative defenses. It would also be helpful for there to be headings for each affirmative defense, particularly as some do appear duplicative.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to the Second through Twenty-Fourth Affirmative Defenses; it is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the First and Twenty-Fifth Affirmative Defense.

Defendants shall serve and file a First Amended Answer by no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Order.

NOTICE: This tentative ruling will automatically become the court’s final order on June 4, 2026 unless, by no later than 4:00 P.M. on June 3, 2026, a party to the action notifies BOTH: 1) the court by emailing Dept520@alameda.courts.ca.gov; AND 2) all opposing counsel or selfrepresented parties (by telephone or email) that the party is contesting this tentative ruling.

The subject line (RE:) of the email must state: “Request for CONTESTED HEARING: [the case name], [number].” When a party emails to contest a tentative ruling, the party must identify the specific holding(s) within the ruling they wish to contest via oral argument.

The court does not provide court reporters for hearings in civil departments. A party who wants a record of the proceedings must engage a private court reporter. (Local Rule 3.95.) Any privately retained court reporter must also participate via video conference. Their email must be provided to the court at the time the Notice of Contest is emailed.

ALL CONTESTED LAW AND MOTION HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED VIA REMOTE VIDEO unless an in person appearance is required by the court. Invitations to participate in the video proceeding will be sent by the court upon receipt of timely notice of contest. A party may give email notice that they will appear in court in person for the hearing, however all other

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV152943: WILLIAMS vs ALBARRAN, et al. 06/05/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Answer; filed by PASHON WILLIAMS (Plaintiff) CRS# 044785260804 in Department 520 counsel/parties and the JUDGE MAY APPEAR REMOTELY.