BUTLER, AN INDIVIDUAL vs SEGURA, AN INDIVIDUAL, et al.

24CV091134: BUTLER, AN INDIVIDUAL vs SEGURA, AN INDIVIDUAL, et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Demurrer to First Amended Complaint; filed by City of Oakland (Defendant) CRS# 771593669572 in Department 517

Tentative Ruling - 08/26/2026 Keith Fong

The Hearing on Demurrer Demurrer to First Amended Complaint; filed by City of Oakland (Defendant) CRS# 771593669572 scheduled for 08/27/2026 is continued to 09/01/2026 at 02:30 PM in Department 517 at Hayward Hall of Justice.

The hearing on the demurrer is CONTINUED to 9/1/26 to be heard concurrently with the motion for summary judgment.

The tentative below was published but not adopted on or about 8/26/26.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The City of Oakland’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action. Plaintiff Anthony Ramon Butler initiated this action on September 11, 2024. The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) filed on August 21, 2025, alleges that on October 20, 2023, he was evaluated inside of an ambulance for injuries regarding a vehicle collision, when a vehicle driven by Defendant Ricardo James Segura struck said ambulance from behind, causing injury to Plaintiff.

On or about June 1, 2026, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), naming the City of Oakland (“Defendant” or “the City”) as Doe Defendant 1.

Prior to this litigation, Plaintiff submitted a claim against the City on or about March 12, 2024. (RJN Exh. E.) Plaintiff stated the following regarding the City’s responsibility for his injuries:

Claimant contends that the CITY OF OAKLAND, its employees, agents, and contractors hereinafter collectively (“CITY”) are responsible for the actions of the personnel operating the Falck ambulance and/or unknown first responder(s) who responded to a prior incident involving the Claimant. Claimant contends that the operators of the Falck ambulance and the other first responders were in the course and scope of their employment with the CITY at the time leading up and during the SUBJECT INCIDENT. Claimant contends that the CITY contracted for the services of Falck ambulance and is therefore responsible for the actions of its 24CV091134: BUTLER, AN INDIVIDUAL vs SEGURA, AN INDIVIDUAL, et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Demurrer to First Amended Complaint; filed by City of Oakland (Defendant) CRS# 771593669572 in Department 517 operators.

Either on its own accord or at the direction of other first responders, the Falck ambulance stopped on the I-880 Southbound, where RICARDO JAMES SEGURA, who was negligently operating a vehicle, while intoxicated, collided with the Falck ambulance while Claimant was inside. The CITY independently and/or through their contractor negligently hired, trained, supervised, and retained the operators of the ambulance and/or other unknown first responders who actions ultimately contributed to Claimant’s injuries.

(RJN Exh. E, Attachment A, p. 1.)

The City demurs to the FAC on the ground, inter alia, that Plaintiff’s claims against the City are untimely.

LEGAL STANDARD

A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of factual allegations in a complaint. (Title Ins. Co. v. Comerica Bank-California (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 800, 807.) A plaintiff must plead facts as are necessary to acquaint a defendant with the nature, source and extent of her claims to provide defendant with notice of the issues sufficient to enable preparation of a defense. (Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 570.) A court should not sustain a general demurrer unless the complaint liberally construed fails to state a cause of action on any theory. (Kramer v. Intuit Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 574, 578.)

On a demurrer, the court accepts the truth of material facts properly pleaded in the operative complaint, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Hacker v. Homeward Residential, Inc. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 270, 276.) Facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be. (Id. at p. 280, citations omitted.)

A defense of the statute of limitations may be asserted by general demurrer only if the complaint shows on its face that the statute bars the action. (E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Services (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.) “[T]he defect must clearly and affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint; it is not enough that the complaint shows merely that the action may be barred.” (Id. at p. 1316.)

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendant’s unopposed request for judicial notice is GRANTED. The court may take judicial notice of the filing and contents of a government claim, but not the truth of the claim. (Gong v. City of Rosemead (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 363, 368, fn. 1, citing Evid. Code § 452(c) and Ludwig v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 8, 14.)

DISCUSSION

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV091134: BUTLER, AN INDIVIDUAL vs SEGURA, AN INDIVIDUAL, et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Demurrer to First Amended Complaint; filed by City of Oakland (Defendant) CRS# 771593669572 in Department 517 As the Court finds the timeliness of Plaintiff’s claims as well as compliance with the presentation requirement to be dispositive, the Court does not reach Defendant’s other arguments regarding whether Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Plaintiff’s Claims Against the City are Untimely

The City contends that Plaintiff’s Doe amendment naming the City as a defendant in this action is untimely and barred by the statute of limitations set forth in the Government Claims Act.

The Government Claims Act establishes a standard procedure for bringing claims against local government entities, such as Defendant. (Hernandez v. City of Stockton (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 1222, 1230.) Generally, no suit for money or damages can be brought against a public entity until a written government claim is presented to and rejected by that entity. (Id.) After the public entity has acted upon or otherwise is deemed to have rejected the claim, the injured plaintiff must generally commence a lawsuit against the entity within six months of the rejection of the claim. (K.J. v. Arcadia Unified School District (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1238; C.C.P. § 945.6.)

Pursuant to judicially noticeable facts, Plaintiff submitted a claim against the City on or about March 12, 2024. (RJN Exh. E.) On or about April 2, 2024, the City denied Plaintiff’s claim. (RJN Exh. F.) Plaintiff initiated this action on September 11, 2024; neither the initial Complaint nor the First Amended Complaint filed on August 21, 2025, named the City as a Defendant. As noted above, the City was not named as a party to this action until June 5, 2026, well after six months following the City’s April 2024 denial of Plaintiff’s claim.

Plaintiff contends that he did not know the full extent of the City’s potential liability until further into the instant litigation, such that the accrual date for alleging claims against the City was extended by the delayed discovery doctrine. Under the delayed discovery doctrine, a claim does not accrue until the plaintiff discovers or has reason to discover the cause of action. (S.M. v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 712, 717.) Plaintiff contends that he did not learn of the City’s potential liability as to the Oakland Fire Department’s acts and/or omissions until the May 26, 2026 deposition of paramedic Gregory Zanders, wherein Zanders testified that prior to the accident, an Oakland fire truck that had been blocking the ambulance in which Plaintiff was in, left the collision scene.

Plaintiff contends that it is the City’s liability is based upon the fire truck’s removal from the scene, which rendered Plaintiff and the ambulance unprotected from oncoming traffic.

To rely upon the delayed discovery rule for delayed accrual of a cause of action, where a complaint is time-barred on its face, a plaintiff must specifically plead facts showing (1) the time and manner of discovery and (2) the inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence. (NBC Universal Media, LLC v. Superior Court (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1222, 1232.) These facts regarding the City’s liability and Plaintiff’s discovery of such facts are not alleged in the FAC. The FAC is devoid of facts specifically showing Plaintiff’s time and manner of discovery of the facts supporting the City’s liability, and the inability to have made earlier

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV091134: BUTLER, AN INDIVIDUAL vs SEGURA, AN INDIVIDUAL, et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Demurrer to First Amended Complaint; filed by City of Oakland (Defendant) CRS# 771593669572 in Department 517 discovery despite reasonable diligence.

Whether Plaintiff’s March 2024 claim to the City adequately alleged facts sufficient to constitute Plaintiff’s knowledge of the City’s liability is a question of fact not suitable for resolution on demurrer. Separately, a plaintiff suing a public entity must allege facts demonstrating either compliance with the claim presentation requirement set forth in Government Code section 910, or an excuse for noncompliance as an essential element of the cause of action. (Ovando v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 42, 63, 65.) Here, the FAC does not allege facts demonstrating compliance with the claim presentation requirement as to the City.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing, the City’s demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. If he can do so in good faith, Plaintiff is granted leave to amend to allege (1) facts to support his delayed discovery of facts supporting his theory of liability against the City; and (2) facts establishing compliance with the claim presentation requirement as to the City.

Plaintiff’s amended pleading shall be filed and served by September 8, 2026. (C.R.C. rule 3.1320(g).) Plaintiff MAY NOT include in the amended complaint any causes of action that are not asserted in the earlier complaint. (See Patrick v. Alacer Corp. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 995, 1015.)

HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING?

THROUGH ECOURT

Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 p.m. (but by Noon if possible) at least one (1) court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select "Search" 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select "Click to Contest this Ruling" 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select "Proceed"

BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4pm (but by

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV091134: BUTLER, AN INDIVIDUAL vs SEGURA, AN INDIVIDUAL, et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Demurrer to First Amended Complaint; filed by City of Oakland (Defendant) CRS# 771593669572 in Department 517 Noon if possible) at least one (1) court day before the scheduled hearing.

BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.

ZOOM LOG-IN INFORMATION FOR DEPARTMENT 517 IS BELOW.

Join ZoomGov Meeting https://www.zoomgov.com/j/16181989812

Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812 One tap mobile +16692545252,,16181989812# US (San Jose) 16692161590,,16181989812# US +(San Jose)

Dial by your location +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose) +1 669 216 1590 US (San Jose) +1 551 285 1373 US +1 646 828 7666 US (New York) 833 568 8864 US Toll-free Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812 Find your local number: https://www.zoomgov.com/u/ad6x1ZH23d

Join by SIP 16181989812@sip.zoomgov.com

Join by H.323 161.199.138.10 (US West) 161.199.136.10 (US East) Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812