Edward Connaughton vs City of Santa Barbara

Case Number

25CV04676

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 02/09/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Demurrer

Tentative Ruling

Edward Connaughton v. City of Santa Barbara

Case No. 25CV04676

           

Hearing Date: February 9, 2026                                            

MATTER:                Defendant City of Santa Barbara’s Demurrer to Plaintiff Edward Connaughton’s Complaint

                            

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Edward Connaughton: Self-Represented

For Defendant City of Santa Barbara: Sarah J. Knecht, Tom R.   Shapiro, Delaney R. Satz

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant City of Santa Barbara’s demurrer to plaintiff Edward Connaughton’s complaint is sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file and serve his first amended complaint no later than February 27, 2026.

           

Background:

This action commenced on July 29, 2025, by the filing of the Judicial Council form complaint by plaintiff Edward Connaughton (“plaintiff”) against defendant City of Santa Barbara (the “City”), for targeting, harassment, and termination. (Compl., ¶ 10.) However, the attached causes of action are for: (1) General Negligence, and (2) Intentional Tort.

The complaint does not contain any independent allegations against the City. Rather, plaintiff simply attaches correspondence to and from various individuals.

The City now demurs to the complaint on the grounds that: (1) The court lacks jurisdiction over the case due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with Government Code section 810, et seq.; (2) The first and second causes of action do not state facts sufficient to constitute causes of action; and (3) The complaint is ambiguous and unintelligible. The demurrer was timely served on plaintiff October 15, 2025, via mail and a courtesy copy was emailed to him on the same date.

Rather than file any opposition to the demurrer, on February 5, 2026, plaintiff filed a declaration.

Analysis:

            Untimely Opposition

To the extent that plaintiff claims his declaration is an opposition to the demurrer, it is untimely. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b), any opposition must be filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing. Thus, the last day that plaintiff was permitted to file his opposition was January 27, 2026.

While the court could exercise its discretion and disregard the late-filed declaration, because the demurrer will be sustained on substantive grounds, the court will consider the declaration.

Having said that, the declaration does not address any of the issues raised by the demurrer. The declaration states, in its entirety:

“The City of Santa Barbara (Hear by known as The City) has actively worked to suppress and misrepresent the facts of this case before the Court. The evidence will clearly demonstrate that The City has made false and misleading claims throughout these proceedings.

“The record shows overwhelming evidence that I was targeted following my first administrative leave. I was initially placed on leave for an alleged inappropriate hand gesture, which was later escalated into allegations of sexual harassment and other false claims. I was never given the opportunity to defend myself against these allegations, nor was I allowed to consult with my union representation. The City later acknowledged that some of the claims made against me, claims of which I was never previously informed were false.

“Despite this, I was compelled to sign a written reprimand that I explicitly told my manager, Andrew, and the Airport Director, Chris, I did not agree with. Both acknowledged my objection and stated that although they did not want to return the matter to Human Resources, they recognized that I was being targeted and assured me it would not be allowed to continue. These facts are documented in my initial filing.

“The City’s request for a demurrer is without merit. The Airport Property Manager exposed his penis to me, proceeded to urinate into an inoperable toilet in a vacant City building, and then showed me a GIF on his phone of a man ‘helicoptering’ his penis. I reported this conduct to my manager, Andrew, and to Airport Director Chris. After I reported additional concerns about Tony’s behavior and his conduct toward my staff, Tony filed a false workplace violence complaint against me. My statements against Tony were used for Tony’s termination, because the accurate timelines I gave were corroborated with the airport’s security cameras.

“During that investigation, not a single interviewee stated that they felt threatened or feared for their safety. On the contrary, witnesses described me as kind, professional, and pleasant to work with. Despite this knowledge, the City knowingly and willfully conducted my interview using coercive, police-style tactics and repeatedly made false statements in an effort to force a false confession of wrongdoing.

“Within five days of my termination, I requested a Skelly hearing (15 Cal.3d 194). The City, through John Doimas, asserted that I was not entitled to such a hearing. Thereafter, the City ceased to respond to my emails and failed to meaningfully respond to my Public Records Act requests. When responses were provided, they were incomplete or nonexistent.

“In its filings, The City also claims it attempted to engage in a case conference outside of court. Through email communications, I agreed to participate; however, when the two proposed dates conflicted with my work and parenting obligations, The City immediately proceeded with filing its demurrer instead of attempting to reschedule.

“Under my leadership at the airport, my division achieved one of the best safety records in The City. My employees received numerous “Employee of the Month” recognitions, I received two highly rated performance evaluations, and my division and I were awarded multiple commendations from The City for outstanding commitment and performance.

“I respectfully request that the Court allow an evidentiary hearing prior to trial to permit the parties to properly confer and to allow this case to proceed to discovery. Additional time will be required for City interviews to be transcribed, for discovered materials to be reviewed, and for a complete and proper submission to be made to the Court before any trial date is set.”

Again, the declaration does not address any of the issues raised by the demurrer.

            Demurrer

“The rules by which the sufficiency of a complaint is tested against a general demurrer are well settled. We not only treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but also give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context. (Speegle v. Board of Fire Underwriters (1946) 29 Cal.2d 34, 42.)’ (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)” (Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38.)

“To survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged.” (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.)

A demurrer searches for defects in the allegations of the pleading. “A demurrer is simply not the appropriate procedure for determining the truth of disputed facts.” (Ramsden v. Western Union (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 873, 879.) As such, the court will disregard the factual arguments contained in the demurrer.

With respect to a public entity, and their employees, there are specific pleading requirements. A public entity has no liability for any injury to any person except as provided by statute. (Gov. Code, § 815; Tuthill v. City of San Buenaventura (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1089.) Claims based upon statutory liability cannot be generally alleged, but must be particularly pled to allege facts demonstrating the right to recover under the statute. (Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 771, 790.)

The City’s first argument is that the court lacks jurisdiction because plaintiff did not comply with the Government Claims Act. In presenting a claim under the Government Claims Act:

“A claim shall be presented by the claimant or by a person acting on his or her behalf and shall show all of the following:

“(a) The name and post office address of the claimant.

“(b) The post office address to which the person presenting the claim desires notices to be sent.

“(c) The date, place and other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted.

“(d) A general description of the indebtedness, obligation, injury, damage or loss incurred so far as it may be known at the time of presentation of the claim.

“(e) The name or names of the public employee or employees causing the injury, damage, or loss, if known.

“(f) The amount claimed if it totals less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) as of the date of presentation of the claim, including the estimated amount of any prospective injury, damage, or loss, insofar as it may be known at the time of the presentation of the claim, together with the basis of computation of the amount claimed. If the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000), no dollar amount shall be included in the claim. However, it shall indicate whether the claim would be a limited civil case.” (Gov. Code, § 910.)

“A claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops shall be presented as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 915) not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. A claim relating to any other cause of action shall be presented as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 915) not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action.” (Gov. Code, § 911.2, subd. (a).)

“[L]iability of a “ ‘local public entity’ ” such as the City is subject to a procedural condition precedent; that is to say, the timely filing of a written claim with the proper officer or body is an element of a valid cause of action against a public entity. [Citations.] Compliance is mandatory, and cannot be excused on the theory that the entity was not surprised by the suit. “ ‘It is not the purpose of the claims statutes to prevent surprise. Rather, the purpose of these statutes is to provide the public entity sufficient information to enable it to adequately investigate claims and to settle them, if appropriate, without the expense of litigation. [Citations.] It is well-settled that claims statutes must be satisfied even in [the] face of the public entity’s actual knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the claim. Such knowledge-standing alone-constitutes neither substantial compliance nor basis for estoppel.’ ” [Citation.] The failure to timely present a proper claim for money or damages to a public entity bars a plaintiff from filing a lawsuit against that entity. [Citation.]” (Gong v. City of Rosemead (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 363, 374.)

The City argues that the events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in August 2023, but that plaintiff has failed to file a claim. In support of this argument, the City provides the declaration of Marisa Kahn, who declares:

“I am employed by the City of Santa Barbara, Division of Risk Management, as a Risk Analyst. I have been the Risk Analyst for the City since December 2013. Prior to my employment with the City, I was employed by an insurance company as a bodily injury claims adjuster from June 2005, until December 2013.” (Kahn Decl., ¶ 2.)

“In my capacity as Risk Analyst for the City, I am the custodian of records for all government claims filed with the City of Santa Barbara. All government claims filed with the City Clerk against the City of Santa Barbara are routed directly to Risk Management which investigates, adjusts, or otherwise handles the claims that are filed.” (Kahn Decl., ¶ 3.)

“I performed a search of all records maintained by Risk Management for any government claim filed by Plaintiff Edward Connaughton. Risk Management has no record of Plaintiff filing a government claim, or seeking leave to file a late claim.” (Kahn Decl., ¶ 4.)

By way of his complaint, at paragraph 9, plaintiff alleges that he has complied with the applicable claims statutes.

“If a plaintiff alleges compliance with the claims presentation requirement, but the public records do not reflect compliance, the governmental entity can request the court to take judicial notice under Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (c) that the entity’s records do not show compliance. [Citations.]” (Gong v. City of Rosemead, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 376.)

The City has requested that the court take judicial notice that the public records do not reflect compliance with the claims presentation requirement. The court will take judicial notice that the public records do not reflect compliance.

However, because the complaint suffers from the deficiencies discussed below, it is unclear whether plaintiff’s claims are statutorily exempt from the requirement that plaintiff comply with the claims presentation statute.

“Plaintiffs must “ ‘allege facts demonstrating or excusing compliance with the claim presentation requirements.’ ” [Citation.]” (Butler v. Los Angeles County (C.D. Cal. 2008) 617 F.Supp.2d 994, 1001, italics added.)

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts either demonstrating compliance or excusing compliance with the claim presentation requirements. This is potentially a curable defect in the complaint.

The City’s next argument is that the complaint is unintelligible. The court agrees. As noted above, plaintiff lists causes of action for wrongful termination, targeting, and harassment, yet he attaches forms for general negligence and intentional tort. Absent from the complaint are any allegations to support any causes of action.

Without specific facts included in the complaint, the City has no means of knowing what the allegations against it are. These allegations must include the statutory basis for plaintiff’s claims as well as the facts essential to the existence of statutory liability.

“[I]n California all government tort liability is dependent on the existence of an authorizing statute or “ ‘enactment’ ” [citations], and to state a cause of action every fact essential to the existence of statutory liability must be pleaded with particularity, including the existence of a statutory duty. [Citation.] Duty cannot be alleged simply by stating “ ‘defendant had a duty under the law’ ”; that is a conclusion of law, not an allegation of fact. The facts showing the existence of the claimed duty must be alleged. [Citations.] Since the duty of a governmental agency can only be created by statute or “ ‘enactment,’ ” the statute or “ ‘enactment’ ” claimed to establish the duty must at the very least be identified.” (Searcy v. Hemet Unified School Dist. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 792, 802.)

The demurrer will be sustained. “ ‘ “[F]or an original complaint, regardless of whether the plaintiff has requested leave to amend, it has long been the rule that a trial court’s denial of leave to amend constitutes an abuse of discretion unless the complaint “ ‘shows on its face that it is incapable of amendment.’ ” [Citations.]’ ” [Citation.]” (Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. County of Los Angeles (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 764, 800.) Plaintiff will be given leave to amend.