SUZANNE GARCIA-VELASCO vs CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA, et al.

2024CUPP031464: SUZANNE GARCIA-VELASCO vs CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA, et al. 05/28/2026 in Department 42 Demurrer to Plaintiff's 3rd Amended Complaint

Motion: City of Ventura’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (Opposed) Tentative Ruling: The Court SUSTAINS the City of Ventura’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint with leave to amend on grounds that the Court does not have jurisdiction over Valencia. All other grounds are overruled. Plaintiff has ten days to amend.

Defendant to give notice. Grounds: Defendant argues that the First and Second Causes of Action fail to state allegations sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the demurring Defendant and are uncertain. Defendant asserts that the Court lacks jurisdiction over a matter alleged to have occurred in the City of Valencia. (CCP §395(a).) Moreover, the allegations do not adequately plead a dangerous condition as to the “edge” of the ramp, or “inadequate” lighting. Discussion: General Principles-Demurrer A demurrer admits all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of law or fact.

A court may also consider matters that may judicially noticed. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 976; Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318 (quoting Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591). The complaint is given a reasonable interpretation, and is read as a whole, reading its parts in their context. (Blank v. Kirwan, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318.) The role of a demurrer is to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint. It is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend if there is any reasonable possibility that any defects in the complaint can be cured by amendment.

But the burden is on the plaintiff to show how the complaint can be amended and how such an amendment will change the legal effect of the pleading. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) Application The Court takes judicial notice of the Municipal Code sections as requested. Plaintiff did not offer any substantive opposition to the Demurrer, but instead seems to concede that there is a basis for the demurrer, asking the Court for leave to amend to correct the “Valencia” / “Ventura” issue, and also to add some allegations.

The Court SUSTAINS the demurrer with leave to amend to correct the jurisdictional defect in the complaint. As to the other grounds, the Municipal Code sections of which the Court takes judicial notice do not act as a bar to Plaintiff’s claims. Those laws provide that a person shall not “ride, use, or

2024CUPP031464: SUZANNE GARCIA-VELASCO vs CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA, et al.

operate” a bicycle in the downtown business district. The operative complaint alleges that Plaintiff was walking her bike when she encountered the defective ramp with a raised and uneven wooden edge 1-2 inches above surrounding surfaces. The Court cannot determine as a matter of law on the present record that walking a bike is riding, using or operating the bike. Furthermore, the dangerous conditions of the edge of the ramp and inadequate lighting are sufficiently pled. The Court overrules the demurrer as to all other grounds.

2