Defendant City of Chico Code Enforcement Officer Selland’s Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint
shall file and serve their responsive pleading within 10 days’ from the date of this hearing. Counsel for the Cross-Defendants shall prepare and submit a form of order consistent with this ruling within two weeks.
12. 25CV04143 ROBINSON, JOSEPH V. SELLAND, DAMON EVENT: Defendant City of Chico Code Enforcement Officer Selland’s Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint Defendant City of Chico Code Enforcement Officer Damon Selland’s (“Defendant” herein) Request for Judicial Notice is granted pursuant to Evidence Code §452(d) [Court Records].
The language in the Second Amended Complaint that Defendant argues is beyond the scope of the Court’s prior Ruling on the Demurrer is found at Page 4, Paragraph 5, and states “5. Defendant knowingly, intentionally, willfully and maliciously abused the power of his office to inflict emotional distress upon Plaintiff under color of law.”
The Court agrees that this additional theory of liability is beyond the scope of the Court’s Ruling on the prior Demurrers and does not directly address the Court’s reason for sustaining the Demurrer. See, Community Water Coalition v. Santa Cruz County Local Agency Formation Com. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1329 [“It is the rule that when a trial court sustains a demurrer with leave to amend, the scope of the grant of leave is ordinarily a limited one. It gives the pleader an opportunity to cure the defects in the particular causes of action to which the demurrer was sustained, but that is all.”]; See also, Patrick v. Alacer Corp. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 995.
As such, the Court previously ruled that should the Complaint be amended further following the Court’s ruling on the prior Demurrer, no such allegation shall be included. Plaintiff however again included such language, which remains improper.
The Demurrer to the entire Second Amended Complaint is granted on the grounds that (1) Plaintiff has again failed to allege he exhausted administrative remedies subject to the claim presentation requirements set forth in the
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 further finds that that the Second Amended Complaint remains uncertain, ambiguous, and unintelligible, and therefore fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §430.10(f) and (e).
The Demurrer is sustained in its entirety without leave to amend. The Court will utilize the form of order submitted by the Defendant and this matter shall remain on calendar on August 26, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. for status of dismissal.
5|Page