WILLIAMS vs COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

Then, on 5/1/2025, Plaintiff received a letter from Mr. Witherspoon advising her that her claim was being denied because she had not filed suit within two years of her alleged injury. (Id. at ¶ 14.) Plaintiff alleges that she immediately sought, for the first time, to retain legal counsel regarding her claim. She alleges that “many” of the attorneys she contacted were reluctant to take her case because of the apparent expiration of two-year statute of limitations period,until her current counsel of record agreed to represent her. (Id. at ¶ 15.) Plaintiff filed her Complaint on 25CV131138: WILLIAMS vs COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 05/26/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Demurrer to Complaint; filed by County of Alameda (Defendant) CRS# 005075823295 in Department 512 7/11/2025.

ANALYSIS OF DEMURRER

Defendant County contends that its Demurrer should be sustained without leave to amend based on Plaintiff’s failure to file her complaint by 4/6/2025 pursuant to Gov’t Code § 945.6(a)(2) and that the Complaint does not adequately allege facts entitling Plaintiff to estoppel.

The Court entered an Order after the first hearing on this Demurrer on 5/14/2026, advising the parties how the Court was leaning and authorizing the parties to submit supplemental briefing. The Court incorporates by reference its 5/14/2026 Order herein.

The parties have submitted supplemental briefing, and the Court commends the parties on the quality of the supplemental briefing, which made each side’s respective arguments in a persuasive and focused manner.

The Court finds that County has persuasively pointed out that the facts of Bertorelli v. City of Tulare (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 432 are more compelling as a basis for a finding of estoppel than what Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges here. The Bertorelli plaintiff was unaware of the need to file an initial government code claim, plaintiff and City of Tulare’s insurance adjuster were actively engaged in settlement negotiations, and City made a partial payment on plaintiff’s claim. Those facts are not alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint.

The Court has again reviewed Sofranic v. County of Merced (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1238; Romero v. County of Santa Clara (1970) 3 Cal.App.3d 700; and Ortega v. Pajaro Vally Unified School Dist. (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1023, three cases which found estoppel had been either evidenced or adequately alleged in the context of the plaintiff’s failure to timely file suit after a government code claim had been denied, either expressly or by operation of law.

In Sofranic, supra, the plaintiff was a correctional officer who believed he was wrongfully denied a promotion. He filed an initial claim on 2/17/2004. The County of Merced rejected the claim by letter dated 3/16/2004. The 3/16/2004 letter advised him of the need to file suit within six months. On 7/21/2004, Plaintiff filed his second claim, which was the same claim he had previously filed but with much more detail about the underlying facts and his theories of liability. County treated the second claim as an amendment to the first claim and rejected it by letter on 8/17/2004, again stating that Plaintiff had six months from the date of the 8/17/2004 letter to file suit.

Plaintiff filed suit on 1/31/2005. In reversing a ruling sustaining County of Merced’s demurrer without leave to amend, the Court of Appeal held that the second letter affirmatively misled Plaintiff as to the deadline to file a lawsuit where it did not reference the prior denial of the first claim.

In Romero, supra, plaintiff alleged that County of Santa Clara wrongfully destroyed her 48 dogs. Plaintiff alleged in her amended pleading that four unnamed employees, some working for the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV131138: WILLIAMS vs COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 05/26/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Demurrer to Complaint; filed by County of Alameda (Defendant) CRS# 005075823295 in Department 512 Santa Clara Municipal Court and others for the Santa Clara Superior Court inaccurately advised her that she had one year to file her complaint after her claim was denied instead of the actual six-month deadline. In ruling on both County’s demurrer and motion for summary judgment, both of which the trial court had sustained or granted, the Court of Appeal held that based on provisions contained in the Government Code, clerks of the Santa Clara Superior Court are agents of the County and that alleged affirmative misrepresentations about the lawsuit filing deadline by them could estop the County from enforcing the six-month deadline to file suit for pleading purposes.

In Ortega, supra, the plaintiff alleged that she had been inappropriately touched by a schoolteacher employed by defendant school district when she was 12 years old. The Court of Appeal found sufficient evidence for a jury finding of estoppel where the teacher had threatened plaintiff with suspension if she reported him, engaged in other threatening activities, and the school principal, when asked by the plaintiff's father whether similar allegations had been made against the teacher in the past, failed to disclose that there had been prior accusations against the teacher.

There was also evidence that plaintiff only felt that her allegations would be believed in light of previous additional events not described herein when the teacher several years later pleaded no contest to sexual molestation charges against another student who had made contemporaneous journal entries about the abuse. However, this second plaintiff student failed to prove estoppel where she presented no evidence the teacher had threatened her or that district employees had made misrepresentations regarding prior allegations against the teacher.

Sofranic, Romero and Ortega all involved affirmative misrepresentations regarding a litigant’s obligation to file or coercive conduct that prevented or deterred litigants from timely filing a complaint. They also support the conclusion that mere silence or ambiguous statements made by agents of a public entity will not support a finding of estoppel. In Bertorelli, the defendant represented the matter would be resolved and even made a partial payment on plaintiff’s claim. Thus, these cases involved affirmative statements or conduct which would cause a reasonable person to refrain from filing, e.g., because they reasonably believed that the public entity would approve or settle their claim without the need for litigation.

Sofranic seems to be the case most procedurally on point. It states at 146 Cal.App.4th at 1250- 1251 (emphasis added) with respect to pleading standards for estoppel claims in the present context the following:

"In order to assert equitable estoppel, the following four elements must be present: (1) the party to be estopped must be apprised of the facts; (2) he must intend that his conduct be acted on, or must so act that the party asserting estoppel had a right to believe it was so intended; (3) the party asserting estoppel must be ignorant of the true state of facts; and (4) he must rely upon the conduct to his injury. The doctrine of equitable estoppel is based on the theory that a party who by his declarations or conduct misleads another to his prejudice should be estopped from obtaining the benefits of his misconduct. Under appropriate circumstances equitable estoppel will preclude a defendant from pleading the bar of the statute of limitations where the plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV131138: WILLIAMS vs COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 05/26/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Demurrer to Complaint; filed by County of Alameda (Defendant) CRS# 005075823295 in Department 512 was induced to refrain from bringing a timely action by the fraud, misrepresentation or deceptions of defendant.”

“To establish estoppel as an element of a suit the elements of estoppel must be especially pleaded in the complaint with sufficient accuracy to disclose facts relied upon. Whether equitable estoppel applies is normally a question of fact. However, where the complaint pleads undisputed facts establishing that equitable estoppel does not apply, the issue may be resolved on demurrer.” [internal citations omitted.]

Sofranic arguably articulates a particularity requirement akin to the requirementfor fraud-based causes of action for intentional or negligent misrepresentation, stated as follows:

"Every element of the cause of action for fraud must be alleged in the proper manner and the facts constituting the fraud must be alleged with sufficient specificity to allow defendant to understand fully the nature of the charge made." This "'strict requirement" of pleading "necessitates pleading facts which 'show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.'" (Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 73.)

Here, the Complaint identifies with particularity agent of the County who misled her (adjuster Dwayne Witherspoon). It also alleges adequatefacts for pleading purposes to explain why it took two months for Plaintiff to file a lawsuit after receiving Defendant’s 5/1/2025 letter advising her that her claim had been denied by virtue of her failure to file suit.

The Complaint further alleges that Witherspoon repeatedly made assurances between 5/26/2023 and 5/1/2025 that her claim was being “handled.” However, it is unclear what this means: Did Witherspoon represent (or imply) that County intended to approve or settle Plaintiff’s claim without the need for litigation? Or did he merely advise that County was processing her claim and would eventually make a determination whether to approve, deny or seek a compromise of the claim? Under the case law cited above, the former would state a claim for estoppel for pleading purposes, but the latter would not

Wherefore, the Court SUSTAINS Defendant’s Demurrer WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

In an amended pleading, Plaintiff must allege with particularity statements made by Witherspoon to her at reasonably specific times that would cause a reasonable person to believe that County would approve or otherwise settle her claim without the need for litigation.

CONTESTING TENTATIVE RULINGS

PLEASE NOTE: If any party contests the tentative ruling, the hearing on the motion will occur remotely via the court's own video-conferencing system.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV131138: WILLIAMS vs COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 05/26/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Demurrer to Complaint; filed by County of Alameda (Defendant) CRS# 005075823295 in Department 512 Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, subdivision (a)(1), this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court unless it is contested before 4:00 PM on the court day preceding the noticed hearing date.

To contest a tentative ruling, a party should do the following:

First, the party must notify Department 512, by email at Dept512@alameda.courts.ca.gov and copy all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The contesting party must state in the subject line of the email the case name, case number and motion.

Second, the party shall log into the eCourt Public Portal, search for this case (e.g., by case number), select the case name, select the "Tentative Rulings" tab, click the "Click to Contest this Ruling" button, enter the party's name and a brief statement of the party's reason for contesting the tentative, and click "Proceed."

Parties may appear via videoconference, using the Zoom.com website or application.

TO CONNECT TO ZOOM:

Join the meeting using the following link: https://www.zoomgov.com/j/16057661931 Join the meeting by Phone:

Meeting ID: 160 5766 1931

1 669 254 5252, 16057661931# US (San Jose) 1 669 216 1590, 16057661931# US (San Jose) 833 568 8864 US Toll-free