Kilrain v. City of Santa Barbara CA2/6

Filed 4/16/25 Kilrain v. City of Santa Barbara CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

DAVID MATTHEW KILRAIN, 2d Civ. No. B332799 (Super. Ct. No. 22CV01222) Plaintiff and Appellant, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA, et al.

Defendants and Respondents.

David Matthew Kilrain appeals the judgment following the trial court’s granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings of respondents City of Santa Barbara, Monica Broumand, Ariel Calonne, Erik Engebretson, Jessica Gray, Nicole Grisanti, Naomi Kovacs, Jeanette Prusinski, Julie Ruggieri, and Mike Wiltshire as to his third amended complaint. He contends the court erred when it found he did not present his claim for damages in compliance with the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et

seq.) and denied his request for leave to amend a fourth time. We will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant filed this action in March of 2022. It is one of several actions alleging a wide-ranging conspiracy against him by respondents, who are current and former city employees, arising in part out of alleged damages to his boat and a restraining order respondents obtained against him.1 The trial court sustained respondents’ demurrers to his complaint and first amended complaint with leave to amend. It overruled their demurrer to his second amended complaint after finding appellant sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.2 Respondents moved for judgment on the pleadings as to his second amended complaint on the ground appellant failed to comply with the Government Claims Act (Act). Appellant acknowledged not filing a timely claim for damages with the City but obtained leave to amend to allege facts sufficient to excuse compliance. He filed a third amended complaint. Respondents again moved for judgment on the pleadings. Appellant’s opposition stated that “[h]is excuse for not totally complying