Opinion and Commentary By Linda Sutter – June 6, 2025

On May 29, 2025, at approximately 0930 hours, I entered the Del Norte Superior Court room department 1 for a demurrer hearing submitted by the Crescent City Harbor District regarding a Writ of Mandate for public documents. The Honorable Judge Darren McElfresh presided the case.

Judge McElfresh listened to both sides of the argument and then stated he would take the case under submission. The Crescent City Harbor District stated that I failed to state a claim.

However, today I received a letter from Del Norte Superior Court. I was very nervous to open the letter. As I tore off the envelope, I began to read the Judge’s analysis of the case. I held my breath with each word I read. 3 full pages and the fourth page had 9 lines of words, but the words that struck excitement was, “the demurrer is denied.”

Judge McElfresh explains, “A demurrer does not test the sufficiency of the evidence or other matters outside the pleading to which it is directed. It challenges only the legal sufficiency of the affected pleading, not the truth of the factual allegations in the pleading or the pleader’s ability to prove those allegations. A demurrer is not the proper procedure for determining the truth of disputed facts, such as the correct interpretation of parties’ agreements or their enforceability, or whether the harbor holds screenshots or not. A judge may not make factual findings on a demurrer, including “implicit” findings.”

“In other words, the contested facts need to be resolved by a trier-of-fact at a hearing after answer, or by other statutory means of summary judgement/adjudication, not by way of a demurrer during the notice stage. In this case, the petition is well pled enough to put the defendants on notice.“