ZACHARY ERNEST TINKER, et al. vs MAYRA VALENCIA, et al.

2026CUPA059544: ZACHARY ERNEST TINKER, et al. vs MAYRA VALENCIA, et al. 05/27/2026 in Department 42 Demurrer and Motion to Strike

Motions: Defendant Mayra Valencia’s 1) Demurrer and 2) Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (unopposed)

Tentative Ruling: The Court GRANTS the unopposed request for judicial notice.

The Court SUSTAINS in part and OVERRULES in part Defendant Mayra Valencia’s unopposed Demurrer to the Amended Complaint. The demurrer to the third, fourth, fifth and sixth causes of action are SUSTAINED without leave to amend. The demurrer to the remaining claims is OVERRULED.

The Motion to Strike is denied.

Defendant to file an answer by no later than June 12, 2026. Defendant shall give notice.

Background: On January 26, 2026, in pro per Plaintiffs Zachary Ernest Tinker, a licensed attorney, and his daughter Camille Vanessa Tinker, filed a complaint against Mayra Valencia, Mayra’s Helping Hands, a corporation, Peter Michael Carrillo, and Does alleging (i) motor vehicle negligence, (ii) general negligence, (iii) negligence per se, (iv) negligent infliction of emotional distress, (v) aiding and abetting / civil conspiracy, (vi) punitive damages, (vii) civil harassment and intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Defendant Valencia allegedly rear-ended Plaintiffs vehicle on the 126 in Santa Paula on April 29, 2024 while intoxicated, and she failed to remain at the scene, leaving in a BMW 740i sedan driven by Doe defendant, Valencia’s sister. Plaintiffs suffered numerous injuries. Valencia’s boyfriend, Peter Carillo, lives directly next door to Plaintiffs and has engaged in a sustained pattern of harassment and intimidation in violation of an October 8, 2025 court order. Valencia is to remain at least 100 yards away.

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was filed on February 6, 2026, with the same causes of action but his daughter is no longer a named plaintiff.

Service: Although the proof of service was only attached to the Motion to Strike, it indicates that both motions and supporting documents were served by USPS Mail on pro per Plaintiff Zacharey E. Tinker at his Fillmore address on April 17, 2026.

Grounds: Defendant Valencia argues that all causes of action fail to adequately state a claim, the causes of action asserted on behalf of a minor lack legal capacity in the absence of a duly appointed guardian ad litem (CCP §327), and unrelated causes of action and parties are joined, specifically in violation of § CCP 527.6. Defendant argues that the allegations fail to specify her role in any conduct and are conclusory. Defendant further asserts that NIED and civil conspiracy are not independent torts and the claim for punitive damages is insufficient.

2026CUPA059544: ZACHARY ERNEST TINKER, et al. vs MAYRA VALENCIA, et al.

The Motion to Strike is directed at the claims for punitive damages and NIED.

Discussion: Demurrer is only appropriate where the grounds for objection appear on the face of the complaint or from any matter of which the court is required to or may take judicial notice. CCP § 430.30(a). For the purpose of a demurrer, the court must treat all properly pleaded facts as admitted. (Blank v Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)

Here, the Court was asked to take judicial notice of the order in case no. 2025CUHR052239. It is unopposed and the Court takes notice of its existence.

The Notice of Demurrer and Motion to Strike indicate they are filed on behalf of Defendant Valencia only, despite references in the briefing as to Mayra’s Helping Hands. The Court limits the application of its ruling to Defendant Valencia only.

First cause of action – motor vehicle negligence

Defendant challenges this claim on the ground that the minor in this case has no guardian ad litem. The Amended Complaint does not name Plaintiff’s daughter as a Plaintiff. The demurrer to this claim is overruled.

Second cause of action – general negligence

Defendant challenges this claim on the grounds that the Defendants are lumped together and the claim is uncertain.

Demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored and should only be sustained where the complaint is so bad that the demurring defendant cannot reasonably respond thereto. (See, e.g., Khoury v. Maly's of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) A demurrer for uncertainty is insufficient unless it specifies how the targeted pleading is uncertain. Here, the Amended Complaint is not so uncertain that Defendant cannot reasonably respond.

Additionally, the cause of action incorporates the allegations in ¶¶1-47, and Defendant Valencia’s role is adequately specified as the driver of the vehicle and girlfriend of Carrillo (Plaintiff’s neighbor). Paragraph 49 alleges that Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty in the exercise of care in the “ownership, operation” of the vehicle. All of the elements of negligence are adequately alleged. The demurrer to this claim is overruled.

Third cause of action – negligence per se

Defendant argues that the Amended Complaint does not plead ultimate facts. While there are sufficient ultimate facts to allege a claim for negligence, negligence per se is an evidentiary doctrine and not an independent cause of action. (Epochal Enterprises, Inc. v. LF Encinitas Properties, LLC (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 44, 58, as modified on denial of reh'g (Jan. 31, 2024).) The demurrer to this cause of action is sustained without leave to amend.

Fourth cause of action – NIED

2026CUPA059544: ZACHARY ERNEST TINKER, et al. vs MAYRA VALENCIA, et al.

As correctly noted by Defendant, NIED is not a separate or standalone cause of action that can be asserted. “[T]here is no independent tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress. [Citation.] The tort is negligence, a cause of action in which a duty to the plaintiff is an essential element.” (Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 965, 984; see Behr v. Redmond (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 517, 532 [“[n]egligent infliction of emotional distress is not an independent tort; the tort is negligence”].) The demurrer to this claim is sustained without leave to amend.

Fifth cause of action – aiding and abetting / civil conspiracy

“Civil conspiracy is not an independent tort under California law. There is no separate tort of civil conspiracy, and there is no civil action for conspiracy to commit a recognized tort unless the wrongful act itself is committed and damage results therefrom.” (CAJUR CIVILCONSP § 2 [citations omitted].) Likewise, aiding and abetting, in and of itself, is not a cause of action but rather an avenue of liability against a particular defendant. The demurer to this cause of action is sustained without leave to amend.

Sixth cause of action – punitive damages

There is no independent cause of action for punitive damages, which is a legal remedy. The Court sustains the demurrer to this claim without leave to amend.

Seventh cause of action – civil harassment / IIED

This cause of action is not alleged against Defendant Valencia and she has no standing to challenge it. The Court overrules the demurrer to this claim.

Motion to Strike:

The Motion to Strike is denied. Plaintiff has adequately alleged a basis for the legal remedy of punitive damages.

3