Williams v. City of Sacramento CA3

Filed 2/14/25 Williams v. City of Sacramento CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

GRANT WILLIAMS, C098205

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 34-2021- 00302513-CU-PO-GDS) v.

CITY OF SACRAMENTO et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiff Grant Williams brought an action against the City of Sacramento and the City of Sacramento Police Department (defendants) alleging negligence, intentional tort, and false imprisonment. The trial court sustained a demurrer to his second amended complaint on the grounds that plaintiff failed to allege facts demonstrating that he complied with the prefiling requirements of the Government Claims Act (See Gov. Code, § 810, et seq. (the Act)) or was excused from the claim presentation requirements. The

1

court did not grant leave to amend, because plaintiff did not demonstrate in his opposition how he might successfully amend his pleading. We affirm the trial court’s rulings. FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS In his second amended complaint (the operative complaint), plaintiff alleges that on November 8, 2018, he was involved in a violent encounter with his sister and her boyfriend in a grocery store parking lot and inside the store. He alleges that he called 9-1-1, and when police officers from the Sacramento City Police Department arrived, instead of helping him, they improperly detained him, caused him further injury, and prevented him from obtaining medical treatment from first responders who went to the place of the fight. He alleges the officers discriminated against him based on his race. Plaintiff filed a complaint against the “Sacramento Police” in the trial court alleging racial discrimination and personal injury on June 14, 2021. According to the trial court’s ruling sustaining a demurrer to a second amended complaint, on August 6, 2021, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. Defendants demurred to the first amended complaint. The trial court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend on the grounds that (1) it was devoid of facts demonstrating plaintiff had filed a timely claim with the defendants; and (2) it was barred by the statute of limitations on its face. Plaintiff then filed the operative complaint in May 2022. The operative complaint purports to raise causes of action for gross negligence, intentional tort, and false imprisonment. Plaintiff seeks punitive damages and compensatory damages for lost wages, general damages, emotional distress, physical injuries, and post traumatic stress. In the operative complaint, plaintiff alleges he is excused from complying with the requirements to the Government Claims Act because of “emergency Rule 9 tolling all statutes of limitations from April 06, 2020 until 90 days after the Governor declares that the state of emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic is lifted.” Emergency Rule 9 of the California Rules of Court is part of Appendix I to the California Rules of Court,