GONZALO LANDEROS vs ESTATE OF JOHN SIBTHORP JR, et al.

2024CUPA032962: GONZALO LANDEROS vs ESTATE OF JOHN SIBTHORP JR, et al. 06/11/2026 in Department 20 Demurrer to Third Amended Complaint

The morning calendar in courtroom 20 will normally begin at 8:30 a.m. Please arrive for your hearing no later than 8:20 a.m. The door will be opened before the calendar is called.

The Court allows appearances by CourtCall and Zoom. If appearing by CourtCall, call in no later than 8:20 a.m. If you wish to appear by CourtCall, you must make arrangements with CourtCall by 4:00 p.m. the court day before your scheduled hearing. Requests for approval of a CourtCall appearance made on the morning of the hearing will not be granted. No exceptions will be made.

For Zoom appearances, all counsel appearing by Zoom must email the court at Courtroom20@ventura.courts.ca.gov with a simultaneous copy to all other counsel/selfrepresented parties no later than 3:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing. INCLUDE THE PHRASE "ZOOM APPEARANCE ON (DATE OF HEARING)" IN THE SUBJECT LINE OF YOUR EMAIL. The email must identify the person who will make the appearance. You will receive the login information for your appearance in reply to your email. If appearing by Zoom, log into the hearing no later than 8:20 a.m. The Court will transfer you to the meeting room when the calendar begins. When you log in to Zoom, be sure that your name and the case name are used as your Zoom name. IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW ALL OF THESE INSTRUCTIONS, YOU WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO APPEAR BY ZOOM AT THE HEARING.

With respect to the tentative ruling below, no notice of intent to appear is required. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, you may email Courtroom20@ventura.courts.ca.gov with all counsel copied on the email. Do not call in lieu of sending an email. If you submit on the tentative without appearing and the opposing party appears, the hearing will be conducted in your absence. If you are the moving party and do not advise the Court that you submit on the tentative, or you do not appear at the hearing, the Court may deny your motion irrespective of the tentative.

Unless stated otherwise at the hearing, if a formal order is required but not signed at the hearing, the prevailing party shall prepare a proposed order and comply with CRC 3.1312 subdivisions (a), (b), (d), and (e). The signed order shall be served on all parties and a proof of service filed with the court. A "notice of ruling" in lieu of this procedure is not authorized.

Motion: Defendant People of the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation’s (“Defendant”) Demurrer to the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”)

Tentative:

1. Plaintiff’s untimely opposition to the demurrer may be disregarded by the Court in its discretion. Defendant responded to the opposition on its merits and the Court exercises its discretion to consider the opposition and proceed on the merits. However, Plaintiff is admonished to comply with the Rules of Court and the Code of Civil Procedure going forward. The Court may, in its discretion refuse to consider future late-filed papers.

2024CUPA032962: GONZALO LANDEROS vs ESTATE OF JOHN SIBTHORP JR, et al.

2. Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED as follows: The Court takes judicial notice of the portions of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (“MUTCD”) requested. (Evid Code § 452, subd. (c).) The Request for Judicial Notice is otherwise DENIED. Defendant requests the Court to take judicial notice of the Declaration of Angelica Ramos, which the Court interprets as a request to take judicial notice that the records of the General Services Agency do not contain a claim filed Plaintiff. The Declaration of Angelica Ramos does not establish such a fact, only that she conducted a “diligent[]” search of the Government Claims Program and has been unable to locate a claim filed by Plaintiff.

3. Defendant’s Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice is DENIED. In light of the ruling denying request for judicial notice of the declaration of Angelica Ramos, the correspondence of which Defendant seeks the court to take judicial notice is not relevant.

4. Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice is DENIED as the documents of which Plaintiff seeks the court to take judicial notice are not relevant since Plaintiff has not alleged compliance with the claims presentation requirements in the TAC.

5. Defendant’s demurrer to the second cause of action of the SAC, “Failure to Discharge Mandatory Duty – Govt. Code § 815.6” is SUSTAINED, WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff has failed to allege facts which show a mandatory duty imposed upon, or a breach thereof, by Defendant. Plaintiff again alleges that the MUTCD is an enactment within the meaning of Government Code section 815.6 and refers in paragraph 38 of the TAC to the same provisions of the MUTCD as set forth in in substance in paragraphs 47 and 49 of the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”).

As explained in the ruling in response to Defendant’s demurrer to the SAC, the MUTCD is a manual, not an enactment or regulation, and therefore does not impose mandatory duties on Defendant. (See Searcy v. Hemet Unified School Dist. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 792, 801; Posey v. State of California (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 836, 848–850.) It expressly provides that it does not impose a legal requirement for the application of traffic control devices and that “the decision to use a particular device at a particular location should be made on the basis of either an engineering study or the application of engineering judgment . . .

Engineering judgment should be exercised in the selection and application of traffic control devices, as well as in the location and design of the roads and streets that the devices complement.” The plain language of the MUTCD indicates that the application of any guideline contained therein involves the exercise of discretion.

The Court further finds that Plaintiff has failed to show in what manner the TAC could be amended and how the amendment would change the legal effect of the complaint to state a cause of action. (Physicians Comm. for Responsible Medicine v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 175, 193; see also PGA West Residential Ass’n, Inc. v. Hulven Int’l, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 156, When the plaintiff fails to apprise the judge of new information that would contribute to a meaningful amendment, a plaintiff does not meet their burden. (Ross v. Creel Printing & Publ’g Co. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 736, 749.)

6. Defendant’s demurrer to the TAC for failure to plead compliance with the Government Claims Act is SUSTAINED, with leave to amend.

2024CUPA032962: GONZALO LANDEROS vs ESTATE OF JOHN SIBTHORP JR, et al.

Plaintiff is granted leave to file and serve a fourth amended complaint on or before June 22, 2026.

Defendant shall provide notice.

3