WANG vs DELTA KAPPA EPSILON, et al.

24CV087515: WANG vs DELTA KAPPA EPSILON, et al. 06/30/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Demurrer to First Amended Complaint; filed by Milanda Kaveen Gunawardena (Defendant) + CRS# 822437286461 in Department 16

Tentative Ruling - 06/29/2026 Victoria Kolakowski

Defendant Cole Junge’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is overruled.1

I.

Background

Plaintiff Jasmine Wang filed a First Amended Complaint against Cole Junge, among several others, alleging that she fell off a roof at a fraternity house (Delta Kappa Epsilon) in Berkeley, California while attending a party where guests could access the house’s insecure roof. (1st Am. Compl ¶¶ 1–3, 13, May 6, 2025; see Am. to Compl., Aug. 26, 2025 (substituting Doe 10 for Junge).) Against Junge, Wang alleged that he was an “owner[], operator[], supervisor[], manager[], caretaker[], repairer[], tenant[], landlord[], agent[], fraternity member[], security personnel, contractor[], controller[], and/or maintainer[] of the Property.” (1st Am.

Compl. ¶ 10.) Wang alleged that the roof was a dangerous condition as it was “not permitted for recreational use” and “not in compliance with any state or local building codes for that purpose.” (Id. ¶ 15; see also id. Ex. A, at p. 2 (allegedly depicting roof).)

In her First Amended Complaint, Wang asserted causes of action for negligence and premises liability. (Id. ¶¶ 56–78.)

In November 2025, Junge demurred to the First Amended Complaint. (Dem. 1st Am. Compl., Nov. 14, 2025.) Junge first argued that he is immune from liability under the social host immunity, as codified at section 1714 of the Civil Code, as Wang’s injuries were caused by her alcohol consumption. (Mem. Supp. Dem. 4:6–6:20.) Junge next argued that Wang’s claims against him are barred by the two-year statute of limitations, which accrued in April 2025 and Junge was not substituted into this action until August 2025. (Id. 7:1–15.) Judge finally argued that the First Amended Complaint was uncertain because of his identification as an “owner[], operator[], supervisor[], manager[], caretaker[], repairer[], tenant[], landlord[], agent[], fraternity member[], security personnel, contractor[], controller[], and/or maintainer[] of the Property.” (Id. 7:16–8:7.)

Wang opposed the Demurrer. (Opp’n to Dem., June 4, 2026.) Concerning social host immunity, Wang partly argued that her injuries did not result from alcohol consumption but rather from the allegedly dangerous conditions on the property. (Id. 9:3–12:14.) Concerning the statute of limitations, Wang partly argued that her amendment substituting Junge for a doe defendant related back to her initial complaint, which was timely. (Id. 12:15–14:26.) And concerning uncertainty, Wang argued that any uncertainty concerning Junge’s relationship to Wang and the property can be resolved through discovery. (Id. 7:21–9:2.) 24CV087515: WANG vs DELTA KAPPA EPSILON, et al. 06/30/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Demurrer to First Amended Complaint; filed by Milanda Kaveen Gunawardena (Defendant) + CRS# 822437286461 in Department 16 II.

Legal Standard

A party may demur to a complaint if it “does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action” or is “uncertain.” (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 430.10(e), (f); see also § 425.10(a)(1) (A complaint must contain “[a] statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.”).) The grounds for the demurrer must “appear[] on the face thereof, or from any matter of which the court is required to or may take judicial notice.” (§ 430.30(a).)

III.

Discussion

The Court overrules Junge’s Demurrer for the reasons noted below.

A. Social Host Immunity With exception, “no social host who furnishes alcoholic beverages to any person may be held legally accountable for damages suffered by that person, or for injury to the person or property of, or death of, any third person, resulting from the consumption of those beverages.” (Cal. Civ. Code § 1714(c).)

Here, accepting the allegations as true, Wang plausibly alleged that her injuries were the result of falling from an insecure roof, not necessarily from alcohol consumption. (See 1st Am. Compl. ¶ 13 (“As a consequence of Jasmine’s intoxication from having been served alcohol at the Chapter’s Cal-Day party on April 22, 2023, Jasmine made her way to the rooftop of the Property, where she subsequently fell.”).) Wang plausibly alleged that Junge is liable for the dangerous condition on the premises.

Nothing in this order precludes Junge from reasserting this point upon an adequately developed evidentiary record.

B. Statute of Limitations The Court finds that, as alleged, the amendment to substitute Junge for a doe defendant relates back to her initial filing. Here, the amendment concerns the same set of facts relating to Wang’s alleged injuries, the same injuries, and the same accident. (See Fix the City, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2024) 100 Cal. App. 5th 363, 374 (“Under the relation-back doctrine, to avoid the statute of limitations bar, the amended complaint must allege the same general set of facts, refer to the same accident, same injuries, and refer to the same instrumentality as alleged in the original complaint.”).) Junge articulated no reason why the relation-back doctrine does not apply here.

C. Uncertainty The Court finds that the First Amended Complaint is not so poorly drafted that Junge cannot reasonably respond. Any ambiguities about his relationship to Wang’s accident are presumably

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV087515: WANG vs DELTA KAPPA EPSILON, et al. 06/30/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Demurrer to First Amended Complaint; filed by Milanda Kaveen Gunawardena (Defendant) + CRS# 822437286461 in Department 16 within his control and can be clarified through discovery.

IV. Orders The Demurrer is overruled.

The Court denies the request to take judicial notice of the filings in this action as moot.

Junge must file an answer to the First Amended Complaint no later than 20 days after Wang serves notice of entry of this order. 1 At Wang’s request, the Court dismissed Miranda Kaveen Gunawardena from the First

Amended Complaint with prejudice. (Req. Dismissal, May 20, 2026.) Accordingly, the Court overrules the Demurrer as moot insofar as Gunawardena sought relief. The Court omits Gunawardena from further discussion of the Demurrer.

In passing, the Court notes that Gunawardena is still named as a cross-defendant in Daniel Panina’s cross-complaint. (See Cross-Compl., Sept. 30, 2025.)

***

The Demurrer filed by Cole Junge, Milanda Kaveen Gunawardena on 11/14/2025 is Overruled.

Brian Breiter (Attorney) representing Jasmine Wang (Plaintiff) must forthwith serve a copy of this order on all counsel of record and self-represented parties, and file proof of service.

If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court.

How Do I Contest a Tentative Ruling? Find your case in eCourt at https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov/ using “Case Search” or “Calendar Search” (after you log in) Select the Tentative Rulings Tab Select "Click to Contest this Ruling" Enter your name and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue. Select "Proceed"

You must also notify the department via email (Dept16@alameda.courts.ca.gov) and opposing parties by no later than 4:00 PM, one court day before the scheduled hearing.

Please provide this information to any opposing parties.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV087515: WANG vs DELTA KAPPA EPSILON, et al. 06/30/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Demurrer to First Amended Complaint; filed by Milanda Kaveen Gunawardena (Defendant) + CRS# 822437286461 in Department 16

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT THE HEARING/CONFERENCE WILL BE IN- PERSON WITH THE OPTION TO APPEAR REMOTELY.

COUNSEL AND PARTIES MAY APPEAR EITHER IN-PERSON IN DEPARTMENT 16 AT THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING OR BY REMOTELY THROUGH THE ZOOM PLATFORM. ZOOM LOG-IN INFORMATION FOR DEPARTMENT 16 IS BELOW.

Join ZoomGov Meeting https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16024053017 Meeting ID: 160 2405 3017