Perez v. The State of Cal. CA4/3

── Perez v. The State of Cal. CA4/3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 23, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/23/26 Perez v. The State of Cal. CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE JENNY PEREZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, G065485 v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2023- 01326651) THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OPINION Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Richard Y. Lee, Judge. Affirmed. Jenny Perez, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Iveta Ovsepyan, Assistant Attorney General, Quintin Lucas and Peter J. Lucca, Jr., Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent.  Plaintiff Jenny Perez filed this action against defendant the State 1 of California (the State). Based on the limited record on appeal, which does not include the operative second amended complaint (or the earlier 2 complaints), Perez appears to have asserted causes of action for negligence and dangerous condition of public property under Government Code section 835 arising out of an alleged incident in July 2020 involving officers of the 3 California Highway Patrol that ended with the death of her son. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the second amended complaint without leave to amend because Perez failed to timely present a claim under the 1 In her opening brief on appeal, Perez says she filed her complaint “against the State of California and its agents and employees in the California Highway Patrol.” In the trial court, the Attorney General identified its client as “Defendant State of California, by and through the California Highway Patrol (erroneously sued as State of California Their Agents and or Employees of the California Highway Patrol)” (italics omitted). And in its respondent’s brief, the Attorney General refers to the respondent and defendant as “State of California, by and through the California Highway Patrol.” (Italics omitted.) On appeal, neither party directly addresses whether the operative complaint erroneously named the defendant. For ease of reference, this opinion refers to the defendant and respondent as the State. 2 After Perez designated the record for appeal, the clerk’s transcript included a note that some of the items were not included in the clerk’s transcript because Perez had failed to identify each specific document she was designating by its title and filing date. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.122(a)(1) [“A notice designating documents to be included in a clerk’s transcript must identify each designated document by its title and filing date or, if the filing date is not available, the date it was signed”].) There is no indication in the record Perez attempted to correct her defective designation of the record or address the fact that the clerk’s transcript did not contain either the second amended complaint or the demurrer to it. 3 All undesignated statutory references are to the Government Code. 2 Government Claims Act (§ 810 et seq.). We conclude the trial court did not err and ther