Cramer v. County of El Dorado CA3

Filed 1/28/26 Cramer v. County of El Dorado CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (El Dorado) ----

DAVID CRAMER, C102216

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 23CV0457)

v.

COUNTY OF EL DORADO,

Defendant and Respondent.

Self-represented plaintiff David Cramer sued defendant El Dorado County (county) over seven years after county approved a nearby landowner’s building permit. Alleging that the permit was unlawful, plaintiff asserted several causes of action against county. The trial court sustained county’s demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend based on the statute of limitations, among other grounds. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff owns real property in the county town of Cool. In 2015, county issued a building permit authorizing a landowner to build on nearby open space land (the 2015 permit). In April 2023, plaintiff sued county, alleging that (1) county’s planning and building department breached its duty by approving the 2015 permit and (2) landowner illegally fenced in federal land, fraudulently represented the size of his property when he applied for the 2015 permit, and operated an illegal winery on the property. On his own, plaintiff amended his complaint in April 2023, May 2023, and June 2023. The June 2023 complaint asserted causes of action for breach of mandatory duty (Gov. Code, § 815.6) and negligence. The court sustained county’s demurrer to the June 2023 complaint on the ground that the causes of action were barred by the statute of limitations. The court granted plaintiff leave to amend his pleading. Plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint in December 2023 (the December 2023 complaint), adding four individuals as defendants, including landowner, landowner’s attorney, and county’s attorney. The December 2023 complaint makes allegations concerning both the 2015 permit and a separate 2022 approval and generally alleges that “[f]raudulent concealment of material facts by [county] prevents the tolling of the [s]tatute of [l]imitations.” The allegations concerning the 2015 permit are as follows. In 2015, landowner built a residential structure on property zoned as open space land. One of county’s employees approved the permit for that building in violation of a county ordinance. “It is reasonable to assume” county “at some point” discovered the violation because the approving employee’s employment ended two days after the final inspection of the structure. Landowner also misrepresented his lot size, committed theft by fencing in federal land, and was operating an illegal winery. The allegations concerning the 2022 approval are as follows. In November 2022, county’s planning commission authorized six unpermitted structures on landowner’s