RAMOS vs EVERGREEN MEMORIAL

Plaintiffs allege that during the funeral service, Defendant’s employee made a discriminatory remark regarding Plaintiffs’ Latino ethnicity and Catholic religious practices.

25CV026970: RAMOS vs EVERGREEN MEMORIAL 06/09/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint in Department 16C

Plaintiffs allege equitable tolling of the statute of limitations because they previously filed an action against Defendant based on the same operative facts and causes of action alleged in the 2AC. Plaintiffs allege that the prior action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. They allege that “[d]uring the pendency of the prior action, Defendant had timely notice of Plaintiffs’ claims, the parties were identical, and Defendant suffered no prejudice in its ability to investigate or defend against the allegations.” (2AC, 3:10-12.)

The 2AC asserts causes of action for: (1) breach of contract (Ruben only), (2) negligence, (3) negligent handling of human remains, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (5) violation of Civil Code section 52.1 (Bane Act), and (6) violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code section 51).

Defendant demurs to each cause of action on the ground Plaintiffs fail to state sufficient facts, and that each cause of action is barred by the respective statute of limitations.[1]

Plaintiffs have a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint scheduled for October 8, 2026.

The Court did not consider Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority filed on June 4, 2026. Plaintiffs did not obtain leave of Court to file the Notice, and no such Notice is authorized by statute or Rule of Court.

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 and a motion to strike “tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) The purpose of a demurrer is to test the legal sufficiency of a claim. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) For the purpose of determining the effect of a complaint, its allegations are liberally 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 noticed. (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 general demurrer does not admit contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the complaint; facts impossible in law; or allegations contrary to facts of which a court may take judicial notice. (Blank v.

Kirwan, supra, 39 Cal.3d at

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV026970: RAMOS vs EVERGREEN MEMORIAL 06/09/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint in Department 16C

318, William S. Hart Union High School Dist. v. Regional Planning Com. (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1612, 1616 n.2.) 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.)

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.) “[Courts] are required to construe the complaint liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated, given the assumed truth of the facts pleaded.” (Picton v.

Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733.) A demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pled and 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.)

Breach of Contract (Ruben Only)

Defendant demurs, in part, on the ground that Plaintiffs fail to plead that Defendant’s alleged conduct was the cause of Plaintiffs’ damages. Defendant notes that “[e]motional distress damages may be recovered for breach of mortuary and crematory contracts, even though such damages are generally not recoverable in breach of contract action, given that severe emotional distress is foreseeable result of breach. (Saari v. Jongordon Corp. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 797, 803.) However, causation of damages in contract cases, as in tort causes, requires that the damages be proximately caused by defendants’ breach, and that their causal occurrence be at least reasonably certain. (US Ecology, Inc. v. State of California (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 887, 909.)” (Demurrer, 13:6-11.)

Defendant insists that Plaintiffs fail to allege causation because Plaintiffs “admit that the funeral was open casket until Plaintiffs chose to close the casket during the funeral. . . . Plaintiffs only allege that they suffered emotional distress due to the sight of Decedent’s body with decomposition, disfigurement, and discoloration. Plaintiffs fail to address how the failure to conduct a private viewing prior to the funeral caused any emotional distress.” (Demurrer, 13:22- 24.) Defendant adds that Plaintiffs fail to allege whether or how Defendant’s conduct caused any decomposition, discoloration, or disfigurement to Decedent.

Plaintiff’s opposition does not address Defendant’s argument regarding causation, which the Court construes 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].)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV026970: RAMOS vs EVERGREEN MEMORIAL 06/09/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint in Department 16C

Accordingly, the demurrer is SUSTAINED. Having sustained the demurrer on this ground, the Court need not address Defendant’s argument regarding the statute of limitations.

Negligence and Negligent Handling of Human Remains

Defendant demurs, in part, on the ground that Plaintiffs fail to plead that Defendant’s alleged conduct was the cause of Plaintiffs’ damages.

Plaintiff’s opposition does not address Defendant’s argument regarding causation, which the Court construes as a concession on the merits. (D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4.)

Accordingly, the demurrer is SUSTAINED. Having sustained the demurrer on this ground, the Court need not address Defendant’s argument regarding the statute of limitations.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Defendant demurs on the ground that Plaintiffs fail to allege extreme and outrageous conduct. Defendant argues that “[w]hile it is undeniable that seeing a deceased individual’s body can be an emotional experience for any individual, Plaintiffs fails to state how any of Defendant’s alleged conduct was extreme and outrageous.” (Demurrer, 17:4-5.) Defendant explains that “[t]here is no duty which requires Defendant to warn Plaintiffs or allow Plaintiffs to check the body before it left the funeral home.

Even if Plaintiffs had checked the Decedent’s body before it left the funeral home, it would not have changed any existing decomposition, disfigurement, or discoloration that had occurred due to Plaintiffs’ delay in embalming the Decedent’s body or altered any normal discoloration or disfigurement caused by the embalming process. Plaintiffs fail to address how the failure to allow Plaintiffs to check the body before it left the funeral home caused any emotional distress.” (Demurrer, 17:9-14.) With respect to the discriminatory remark, Defendant maintains that “Plaintiffs refers [sic] to a vague, alleged comment by Defendant’s employee, stating ‘You people wait too long to have funerals; this is not our fault.’, which they allege was a discriminatory reference to Plaintiffs’ Latino ethnicity and Catholic religious practices. (Id. at p. 5-6.).

However, there is no identifying language or context that it is a discriminatory reference nor did Plaintiffs ever report it to Defendant.” (Demurrer, 17:14-21.)

Defendant also argues that Plaintiffs fail to plead that Defendant acted with the requisite intent or severe emotional distress.

Plaintiff’s opposition does not address Defendant’s arguments, which the Court construes as a concession on the merits. (D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV026970: RAMOS vs EVERGREEN MEMORIAL 06/09/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint in Department 16C

Accordingly, the demurrer is SUSTAINED. Having sustained the demurrer on this ground, the Court need not address Defendant’s argument regarding the statute of limitations.

Violation of Civil Code Section 52.1 (Bane Act) and (6) Violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code Section 51)

Defendant argues that “Plaintiffs assert conclusory statements that Defendant intentionally withheld material information regarding the condition of the remains forcing Plaintiffs into deprivation of religious funeral rights and that Defendant denied Plaintiffs full and equal accommodation by providing services in manner that disregarded Plaintiffs’ Catholic religious practices. (Joea Decl. ¶ 4, p. 9-10.) However, Plaintiffs have failed to identify any conduct by Defendant in support of its statements. Plaintiffs refer to an alleged discriminatory statement by Defendant’s employee, but that is not any conduct preventing the funeral.” (Demurrer, 19:19- 25.) Defendant also notes that Plaintiffs have removed both of the fifth and sixth cause of action in their proposed Third Amended Complaint filed with their Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff’s opposition does not address Defendant’s arguments, which the Court construes as a concession on the merits. (D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4.)

Accordingly, the demurrer is SUSTAINED. Having sustained the demurrer on this ground, the Court need not address Defendant’s argument regarding the statute of limitations.

Disposition

Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. The Court grants leave to amend since this is Defendant’s first challenge to the complaint.

Plaintiffs may file and serve a third amended complaint (“3AC”) by no later than June 22, 2026, Response to be filed and served within 30 days thereafter, 35 days if the 3AC 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 3AC to facilitate the filing of the pleading.)

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

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:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV026970: RAMOS vs EVERGREEN MEMORIAL 06/09/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint in Department 16C

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 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID 16030877014. 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/courtreporters/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 forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

[1] Defendant submitted the declaration of Aman K. Joea in support of the demurrer. The

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV026970: RAMOS vs EVERGREEN MEMORIAL 06/09/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint in Department 16C

declaration references exhibit A through M and states that they are attached. However, Joea’s declaration has no exhibits attached. Rather, the exhibits are included in a separately filed document entitled “Exhibit A” in the Register of Actions. The apparent purpose of referencing these exhibits was to allow them to be judicially noticed in support of a statute of limitations argument. However, since the Court is sustaining Defendant’s demurrer to all causes of action based on failure to state sufficient facts, it need not address Defendant’s argument regarding the statute of limitations.