Demurrer
alleged do not constitute new matter, but are merely defenses to Cross- Complainants’ causes of action (e.g., “Excessive Alleged Damages,” “Alleged Excessive Fines,” “Due Process,” “No Duty,” “No Breach of Duty,” etc.) Further, none of the affirmative defenses contain sufficient ultimate facts to give Cross-Complainant notice of the basis for the affirmative defense. Cross-Defendants’ affirmative defenses, as currently pled, needlessly expand the scope of this action, discovery, and the defenses that Cross-Complainant must address at trial and/or on a motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication.
As such, the court’s ruling reflects the court’s desire for the parties to informally resolve these issues, eliminate unnecessary affirmative defenses, provide sufficient ultimate facts for the affirmative defenses alleged, and narrow/streamline the scope of this action.
Moving Party to give notice.
2 Barbosa vs. TENTATIVE RULING: Prime Healthcare For the reasons set forth below, the demurrer by Defendants Peter Foundation, Himber, Larry Lanauer, and Jack Stanton to the first amended Inc. complaint is OVERRULED.
Legal Standard
A demurrer challenges the sufficiency of a pleading by raising questions of law. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; ABF Capital Corp. v. Berglass (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 825, 833.) As such, the only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action. (McKenney v. Purepac Pharmaceutical Co. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 72, 77.)
If the complaint fails to state a cause of action, the court must grant the plaintiff leave to amend if there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured by amendment. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318
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?”
In ruling on a demurrer, the trial court must accept as true all material facts properly pleaded in plaintiff’s petition, disregarding only conclusions of law and allegations contrary to judicially noticed
facts. (Burt v. County of Orange (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 273, 277.) All that is necessary as against a general demurrer is to plead facts entitling the plaintiff to some relief under any possible legal theory. (Woods v. Superior Court (1981) 28 Cal.3d 668, 673.)
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Defendants argue that the First Amended Complaint is subject to Demurrer, because, pursuant to the Lanterman Act, Plaintiff was required to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing her complaint.
As the court previously ruled in its 10/1/25 Minute Order, the fair hearing procedure only applies to “all issues concerning the rights of persons with developmental disabilities to receive services under this division....” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 4706, subd. (a); Michelle K. v. Superior Court (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 409, 423.) For example, this includes situations where the plaintiff takes issue with the individual program plan developed by a regional center. (Shahtout by and through Shahtout v. California Psychcare, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2022) 562 F.Supp.3d 913, 922-923; see Harbor Regional Center v. Office of Administrative Hearings (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 293, 308.)
While the First Amended Complaint makes passing reference to the Lanterman Act (First Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 11, 12 57, 59, 60), Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendants do not take issue with the services Defendants provided to the Decedent. Instead, Plaintiff is critical of Defendants because they allegedly failed in their duties as Decedent’s caretaker, and such failure resulted in Decedent’s injury, and subsequent death. (First Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 63-72, 76-81, 86-88, 92.)
None of the cases Defendants cite in its Demurrer – Michelle K., Conservatorship of Whitley, In re Michael K., Bouslog, S.C. v. County of Los Angeles, Shahtout, or Kimiko – applied to scenarios such as this one, i.e., where Plaintiff alleges Defendant itself played a direct role as Decedent’s care custodian. The court has not located a case that stands for the proposition that any and all claims against a regional center and its employees/agents, regardless of the type of claim, are subject to the fair hearing requirement.
The court also notes that the demurrer is extremely untimely. Defendants were served with the first amended complaint on 2/19/25. (See ROA## 138, 140, 148). Defendants did not file the demurrer until 2/20/26—over one year later. (See Code of Civ. Proc. § 430.40(a) (deadline to file demurrer is 30 days after service of the
complaint). Defendants have not obtained any relief from the court to extend the deadline to file a demurrer.
For these reasons, the court overrules the Demurrer.
Moving Defendants to give notice.
3 Nguyen vs. TD TENTATIVE RULING: Bank For the reasons set forth below, Defendant TD Bank, NA’s demurrer to Plaintiff Kimberly Nguyen’s First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED. Plaintiff is granted one final opportunity for leave to amend her complaint.
Statement of Law
A demurrer only tests the sufficiency of the pleadings. (See Satyadi v. West Contra Costa Healthcare District (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 1022, 1028 [in analyzing a demurrer, the court looks only to the face of the pleadings and to matters judicially noticeable and not to the evidence or other extrinsic matters]).
In reviewing the propriety of the sustaining of a demurrer, the “court gives the complaint a reasonable interpretation, and treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded. [Citations.] The court does not, however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. [Citation.] The judgment must be affirmed ‘if any one of the several grounds of demurrer is well taken. [Citations.]’ [Citation.] However, it is error for a trial court to sustain a demurrer when the plaintiff has stated a cause of action under any possible legal theory. [Citation.]
And it is an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if the plaintiff shows there is a reasonable possibility any defect identified by the defendant can be cured by amendment.” (Hale v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1379 [citing Aubry v. Tri–City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967].).
A court will not consider facts that have not been alleged in the complaint unless they may be reasonably inferred from the matters alleged or are proper subjects of judicial notice. (Hall v. Great W. Bank (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 713, 718 fn.7.)
First Amended Complaint (FAC)
Plaintiff filed her FAC on 5/7/26 on Judicial Council form PLD-C- 001. However, under Paragraph 8 of the FAC, Plaintiff does not