The general demurrer by the Fire District defendants is sustained with limited leave to amend. (Code Civ. Proc., section 430.10, subd. (e).) Plaintiffs shall file any amended complaint on or before April 16, 2014.

Plaintiffs have improperly combined two distinct theories of liability in their First Cause of Action: (1) dangerous condition liability under section 835 et seq. of the Government Code, and; (2) vehicle operation liability under section 17001 of the Vehicle Code. Plaintiffs compound the difficulty of assessing these two distinct theories by naming all defendants in one cause of action. The Court will consider each theory as if it were pleaded in a separate cause of action.

Dangerous Condition Liability

The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend, insofar as plaintiffs have attempted to state a cause of action against the Fire District defendants for dangerous condition liability. (See, Gov. Code, section 835 et seq.) Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts showing that the Fire District defendants “owned or controlled” the site of plaintiff Brian Favro’s accident. (See, Gov. Code section 830, subd. (c).) Further, plaintiffs have made no effort to allege, as to each individual defendant, facts showing individual liability for a dangerous condition. (See, Gov. Code, section 840 et seq.)

Vehicle Code Section 17001

The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend, insofar as plaintiffs have attempted to state a cause of action against defendant Moraga-Orinda Fire District under section 17001 of the Vehicle Code. Plaintiffs have failed to adequately allege facts supporting this legal theory. In particular, plaintiffs have failed to allege in what specific respects the “operation” of the Fire District’s motor vehicles was negligent, and how any such negligence “proximately caused” plaintiff Brian Favro’s injuries.

The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend, insofar as plaintiffs have attempted to state a cause of action against the individual Fire District defendants under section 17001 of the Vehicle Code. The individual defendants have no such liability. (Veh. Code, section 17004.)

Additional Matters

In light of this ruling, the Court will defer for future consideration the possible applicability of various statutory immunities. The Court’s preliminary assessment is that emergency services immunity or discretionary immunity may well prove dispositive at the demurrer stage. (See, Gov. Code, section 820.2; Health and Saf. Code, section 1799.107; Varshock v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 635, 643 650.)

In any amended complaint, plaintiffs shall set out their surviving section 17001 cause of action against defendant Moraga-Orinda Fire District separately from their surviving dangerous condition cause of action against defendant CalTrans. It is acceptable to state a single loss of consortium cause of action against both defendants. Plaintiffs shall not state any new causes of action against either defendant, and shall not add any new defendants, without first obtaining leave of court by noticed motion.

The individual Fire District defendants shall prepare a proposed judgment of dismissal in their favor, and shall submit that proposed judgment to plaintiffs’ counsel for approval as to form.

Finally, the Court notes that plaintiffs’ counsel cited the Duarte decision in plaintiffs’ opposition memorandum. (See, Duarte v. San Jose (1980) 100 Cal.App.3d 648.) In the future, if plaintiffs’ counsel finds it necessary to cite a Court of Appeal decision that has been overruled by the California Supreme Court, this Court would appreciate an explanation of why the decision should still be considered pertinent authority. (See, Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 925-926 [overruling Duarte’s interpretation of Vehicle Code section 17001].)