RASHAD vs STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

25CV154193: RASHAD vs STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 05/26/2026 Hearing on Demurrer DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL’S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER AS TO FIRST AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION AND NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; filed by State of California, acting by and... CRS# 303381502500 in Department 517

Tentative Ruling - 05/21/2026 Keith Fong

The Demurrer filed by State of California, acting by and through the California Highway Patrol on 02/05/2026 is Sustained with Leave to Amend.

Defendant California Highway Patrol’s unopposed Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Defendant California Highway Patrol’s unopposed Motion to Strike is GRANTED.

Defendant California Highway Patrol’s unopposed Motion to Reclassify is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Eddie Rashad (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action in pro per on November 12, 2025 against Defendant the State of California, acting by way and through the California Highway Patrol (“Defendant” or “CHP”). The Complaint alleges (1) Negligence; (2) Violation of the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”); and (3) Denial of Due Process.

Plaintiff alleges that he made a CPRA request for documents relating to his citation from CHP in July 2023. Plaintiff contends that CHP failed to timely respond to the request.

CHP now demurs to the First and Third Causes of Action for failure to allege facts sufficient to constitute causes of action. CHP concurrently moves to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for damages and allegations in support thereof, as such damages are not available under the CPRA.

CHP separately moves to reclassify this action from an unlimited civil case to a petition for writ of mandate.

Despite proper service and notice pursuant to C.C.P. § 1005, there are no oppositions to either motion on file from Plaintiff.

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 25CV154193: RASHAD vs STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 05/26/2026 Hearing on Demurrer DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL’S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER AS TO FIRST AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION AND NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; filed by State of California, acting by and...

CRS# 303381502500 in Department 517 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.)

The court may strike any “irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading,” or may strike out all or any part of a pleading “not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a rule of court, or an order of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) “Unless a contract or statute provides otherwise, each party to a lawsuit must pay its own attorney fees.” (Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1582, 1601, citing C.C.P. § 1021.)

A defendant may file a motion for reclassification within the time allowed for that party to respond to the initial pleading. (C.C.P. § 403.040(a).) Parties must be afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard on why reclassification should or should not be ordered. (Stern v. Superior Court (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 223, 230.) The trial court’s decision on a reclassification motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 276.)

DISCUSSION

As noted, there is no Opposition on file from Plaintiff. As such, the Court construes Plaintiff’s silence as a concession as to the merits of the demurrer and motion to strike. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54(c) [“A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.”]; Aronow v. LaCroix (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1039, 1048; Coziahr v. Otay Water Dist. (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 785, 799 [points unsupported by argument and authority are deemed forfeited].)

Negligence – First Cause of Action

Defendant contends that the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for negligence as Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty; breached such a duty; or that Defendant’s breach caused Plaintiff’s damages.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV154193: RASHAD vs STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 05/26/2026 Hearing on Demurrer DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL’S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER AS TO FIRST AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION AND NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; filed by State of California, acting by and... CRS# 303381502500 in Department 517 Public entities cannot be liable for common law theories of general negligence. (Miklosy v.

Regents of University of California (2008) 44 Cal.4th 876, 899 [“section 815 abolishes common law tort liability for public entities”].) Therefore, liability against a public entity must be authorized by statute. (Eastburn v. Regional Fire Protection Authority (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1175, 1179; Gov. Code, § 815(a).) There is no such thing as common law tort liability for public entities. (Hernandez v. City of Stockton (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 1222, 1229.)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty “to perform its statutory and administrative obligations with reasonable care” and by “failing to process and respond” to Plaintiff’s records request and government claim, Defendant breached that duty. (Compl. p. 2.)

To the extent Plaintiff alleges that Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty under the CPRA, the CPRA cannot be the basis of a separate negligence claim. “[T]he CPRA provides the exclusive remedy for resolving whether a public entity has erroneously refused to disclose a particular record or class of records. Nowhere in the CPRA is there any language that explicitly or implicitly restricts, permits, or precludes any type of legal action ‘concerning’ public records other than whether a particular record or class of records must be disclosed. The CPRA’s judicial remedy is limited to a requestor’s action to determine whether a particular record or class of records must be disclosed.” (County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 119, 130.) To the extent Plaintiff alleges a violation of the CPRA, the First Cause of Action is duplicative of the Second Cause of Action.

To the extent Plaintiff alleges that Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty under Government Code § 815.2, the Complaint is uncertain as pleaded. Section 815.2, subdivision (a) provides that a public entity is liable for an injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his or her employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of action against that employee. The Complaint does not contain allegations of any act or omission of an employee acting in the scope of their employment that would lead to Defendant’s liability under section 815.2(a).

Moreover, Government Code section 912.4 does not appear to create a duty by Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s government claim. Subdivision (c) provides that if the public entity’s board fails or refuses to act on a claim within the required time period, the claim is deemed rejected by the board on the last day of the period within which the board was required to act upon the claim.

Based upon the foregoing, the demurrer to the First Cause of Action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV154193: RASHAD vs STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 05/26/2026 Hearing on Demurrer DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL’S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER AS TO FIRST AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION AND NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; filed by State of California, acting by and... CRS# 303381502500 in Department 517 Denial of Due Process – Third Cause of Action

Defendant contends that Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for Denial of Due Process.

There is no cause of action for monetary damages for alleged violations of due process and equal protection under the California Constitution when such an action is not tied to an established common law or statutory action. (Julian Mission Community Hospital (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 360, 391-392; Katzberg v. Regents of University of California (2002) 29 Cal.4th 300, 303, fn. 1.)

To the extent Plaintiff ties his Third Cause of Action to the First Cause of Action for negligence, as Plaintiff fails to allege facts to state a claim for negligence, so too does the Third Cause of Action fail.

To the extent Plaintiff ties his Third Cause of Action to the Second Cause of Action for Violation of the CPRA, as noted above, the CPRA does not provide a judicial remedy that may be utilized for any other purpose other than to determine whether records must be disclosed. Moreover, a statutory violation does not automatically rise to the level of a constitutional due process violation, unless it implicates Plaintiff’s protected interest in life, liberty, or property. (People v. Talhelm (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 400, 407-408, fn. 5.)

The demurrer to the Third Cause of Action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Motion to Strike

Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s request for statutory and compensatory damages and interest as improper, pursuant to C.C.P. § 436(a). Damages are not available relief under the Public Records Act, codified in Government Code section 7923.000. Plaintiff may seek injunctive relief, declaratory relief, or writ of mandate under section 7923.000.

The motion to strike is GRANTED.

Leave to Amend

On an original complaint, regardless of whether a plaintiff has requested leave to amend, a trial court’s denial of leave to amend constitutes an abuse of discretion unless the complaint on its face that it is incapable of amendment. (Eghtesad v. State Farm General Insurance Company (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 406, 411-412.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV154193: RASHAD vs STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 05/26/2026 Hearing on Demurrer DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL’S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER AS TO FIRST AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION AND NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; filed by State of California, acting by and... CRS# 303381502500 in Department 517 Although Plaintiff has not opposed the demurrer or motion to strike, or identified what additional facts can be added to cure the defects identified herein, as this is the first time the complaint has been subject to a dispositive motion before the Court, Plaintiff is granted leave to amend as to the First and Third Causes of Action, if he can do so in good faith.

MOTION TO RECLASSIFY

Defendant moves to reclassify this action from an unlimited civil action to a petition for writ of mandate on the ground that Plaintiff asserts a CPRA enforcement action for Defendant’s alleged failure to comply with the CPRA. (Gov. Code § 7923.100.) A CPRA proceeding is a special proceeding of a civil nature, not an action at law or suit in equity, but established strictly by statute. (City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 272, 285.) Defendant contends that the writ department would be better suited to hear this matter, as CPRA actions should be adjudicated expeditiously. (Gov. Code § 7923.005.)

Based upon the foregoing, and for the reasons stated in Defendant’s unopposed motion, the motion to reclassify is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

Defendant CHP’s demurrer to the First and Third Causes of Action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Defendant CHP’s motion to strike is GRANTED.

Defendant CHP’s motion to reclassify is GRANTED. The clerk is directed to serve a copy of this order to the Presiding Judge to issue an order of reassignment to a writ department.

If Plaintiff can do so in good faith, he may amend his pleading to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action. Plaintiff’s amended pleading shall be filed and served by June 12, 2026. (C.R.C. Rule 3.1320(g).) In the event Plaintiff fails to timely file an amended complaint, Defendants may seek dismissal of the First and Third Causes of Action by way of an ex parte application pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (f)(2) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(h).

PRO PER PLAINTIFF

The Court encourages Plaintiff to make use of his earliest opportunity to seek competent

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV154193: RASHAD vs STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 05/26/2026 Hearing on Demurrer DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL’S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER AS TO FIRST AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION AND NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; filed by State of California, acting by and... CRS# 303381502500 in Department 517 assistance in his complaint using one of the many resources available to him. He can seek help from an experienced attorney or legal aid organization.

He can seek an attorney referral from the Alameda County Bar Association’s attorney referral service. He can avail himself of the selfhelp resources and attorneys available from the Superior Court at its Self-Help center in the Hayward courthouse. He can avail herself of the many practice guides and secondary sources available for reference at no cost at the Alameda County Law Library.

If Plaintiff has not done so already, he is encouraged to obtain the advice of licensed counsel (including, e.g., through the Alameda County Bar Association’s attorney referral service (https://www.acbanet.org/need-a-lawyer/ or (510) 302-2222)); access online self-help guides and tools at the California Courts Self Help website (https://selfhelp.courts.ca.gov/civil-lawsuit); and/or to seek assistance at the County Law Library (https://lawlibrary.acgov.org).

Legal Access Alameda also holds the Community Legal Assistance Saturday Program on the FIRST Saturday of each month. Callers may leave a message from 10 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. at (510) 485-9933, with return phone consultations occurring later that day. More information is available at legalaccess.org or (510) 302-2222.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV154193: RASHAD vs STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 05/26/2026 Hearing on Demurrer DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL’S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER AS TO FIRST AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION AND NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; filed by State of California, acting by and... CRS# 303381502500 in Department 517 Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4pm (but by 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