Rodick v. County of Santa Clara CA6

Filed 3/30/26 Rodick v. County of Santa Clara CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

JOSELYN RODICK, H053052 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. 22CV409336)

v.

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,

Defendant and Respondent.

This is an appeal from a judgment of dismissal following the sustaining of a demurrer to a third amended complaint (TAC) without leave to amend. Appellant Joselyn Rodick argues that she was given an insufficient opportunity by the trial court to oppose the demurrer and that she should also have been granted leave to amend. Rodick has not included the trial court’s order sustaining the demurrer in the record, nor has she included any of the demurrer briefs, the TAC itself, or any other prior pleadings or orders. Rodick’s failure to provide an adequate record precludes us from making any determination regarding the demurrer, let alone ruling in her favor. Rodick also does not describe what amendment she would make to the TAC or how it would cure any defect in that pleading. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. I. BACKGROUND In December 2022, Rodick filed her original complaint. The complaint is not in the record, but Rodick states that she sued the County of Santa Clara (the County) for negligence, negligent supervision, negligent hiring and retention, and intentional

infliction of emotional distress. These causes of action were based on her placement in foster care by the County when she was a child, where one of the foster parents sexually molested her. She notes that the foster parent was later convicted of child molestation in 1987, was sent to prison, and died in prison. Rodick states that she was granted leave to amend the complaint by the trial court, and then she stipulated with the County to file a second amended complaint in March 2024. The County demurred to the second amended complaint. The record does not reflect the outcome of the demurrer, but it appears that the trial court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend, as Rodick filed her TAC in August 2024, after the issuance of the court’s order. On September 26, 2024, the County demurred to the TAC. Although Rodick claims that she submitted an opposition to the demurrer on November 21, 2024, no such document appears in the trial court’s register of actions. On December 4, one day before the scheduled hearing, Rodick filed a document entitled “Declaration of Michael D. Maloney ISO Opposition to Demurrer to Third Amended Complaint.”1 Following the hearing, the trial court sustained the County’s demurrer without leave to amend. On January 27, 2025, a different judge of the trial court issued a judgment of dismissal. Rodick timely appealed. II. DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review and Applicable Legal Principles “[T]he standard of review of a ruling sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend is de novo. Whether leave should have been granted is considered under the abuse of discretion standard, although error is shown if there is any reasonable probability an amendment curing the defect can be made. [Citation.]” (Fox v. JAMDAT Mobile, Inc. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1078-1079.) “The appellant has the burden to