| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
DEMURRER to COMPLAINT
SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 302 - CGC25623302 - November 13, 2025 Hearing date: November 13, 2025 Case number: CGC25623302 Case title: LINDA E. GARCIA JUAREZ VS. SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL Case Number: | | CGC25623302 | Case Title: | | LINDA E. GARCIA JUAREZ VS. SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-11-13 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | DEMURRER to COMPLAINT | Rulings: | | On the Law & Motion/Discovery calendar for Thursday, November 13, 2025, Line 8, DEFENDANT SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT (Part 1 of 2)
Defendant San Francsico Unified School District's Demurrer to Complaint is OVERRULED IN PART AND SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND IN PART.
Minor Plaintiff as a second-grade student was injured while playing on an off-campus playground during the school day but during an off-campus outing. Minor Plaintiff through her GAL, her mother, sued, among others the San Francisco Unified School District and the County Office of Education for negligent supervision under Government Code sections 815.2 and 820 (first cause of action) and negligence (though not at all labelled) under Government Code sections 815.2 and Education Code section 44807.
Defendant demurs under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e). The issue under subdivision (e) is taking the facts properly pleaded as true does the challenged cause of action necessarily fail to state a cause for relief. (See Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e); Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) In assessing whether the complaint states a cause of action, the court accepts all properly pleaded material facts, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Minton v.
Dignity Health (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1155, 1161.) "[I]f, on consideration of all facts stated, it appears that plaintiff is entitled to any relief against defendant, the complaint will be held good, though facts may not be clearly stated, or may be intermingled with a statement of other facts irrelevant to cause of action shown, or though plaintiff may demand relief to which he is not entitled under facts alleged." (Augustine v. Trucco (1954) 124 Cal.App.2d 229, 236, quoting Matteson v. Wagoner (1905) 147 Cal. 739, 742
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The court liberally construes the complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 452.
Defendant's demurrer based on its contention that the first and second causes of action "state the same claim" and both fail because Education Code section 44807 is inapplicable is generally well taken. Plaintiff seems to acknowledge substantial overlap between the first and second causes of action and that Education Code section 44807 is inapplicable. The court grants Plaintiff leave to amend.
Plaintiff contends she can amend to allege a claim under Government Code sections 815.2 and 820 and Education Code section 44808. Education Code section 44808 provides as follows: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, no school district, city or county board of education, county superintendent of schools, or any officer or employee of such district or board shall be responsible or in any way liable for the conduct or safety of any pupil of the public schools at any time when such pupil is not on school property, unless such district, board, or person has undertaken to provide transportation for such pupil to and from the school premises, has undertaken a school-sponsored activity off the premises of such school, has otherwise specifically assumed such responsibility or liability or has failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances.
In the event of such a specific undertaking, the district, board, or person shall be liable or responsible for the conduct or safety of any pupil only while such pupil is or should be under the immediate and direct supervision of an employee of such district or board. []
Defendant's demurrer as to claims alleged against the County Office of Education is overruled. Defendant did not carry its burden to demonstrate that the properly pleaded judicially noticeable facts demonstrate such claims necessarily fail to state a claim for relief. " (Tentative ruling continues in Part 2 of 2) | |