Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint
Moving Defendant to give notice.
3 Curry vs. Kindred TENTATIVE RULING: Hospital Westminster The Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint by Defendants Knight Health Holdings, LLC (incorrectly named as Knight Health Holdings, LLC, d/b/a SCIONHEALTH) and Kindred Hospitals West, L.L.C. (incorrectly named as Kindred Hospitals West, L.L.C., d/b/a Kindred Hospital Westminster) is SUSTAINED as set forth below.
1st Through 5th, 7th and 9th Causes of Action
Plaintiff concedes the 1st through 5th, 7th and 9th causes of action are barred by the statutes of limitations as pleaded. Thus, the demurrer to these causes of action is SUSTAINED.
6th, 10th and 11th Causes of Action
Plaintiff contends he will remove the 6th, 10th and 11th causes of action as independent counts and place any supported statutory- standard, agency, employment, authorization, or ratification facts within a viable substantive claim. Thus, he concedes that the demurrer should be sustained as to the 6th, 10th and 11th causes of action. Accordingly, the demurrer is SUSTAINED as to these causes of action.
12th Cause of Action
Plaintiff concedes the 12th cause of action should be sustained without leave to amend. Accordingly, the demurrer to this cause of action is SUSTAINED, without leave to amend.
8th Cause of Action
What remains is the 8th cause of action. With regards to the 8th cause of action for Disability discrimination (ADA & Rehabilitation Act § 504), Defendants contend the cause of action is devoid of factual allegations sufficient to support an ADA claim as Plaintiff fails to identify his disability and how Defendants discriminated against him. Defendants also contend the claim is barred by the statute of limitations.
“To prevail on a discrimination claim under Title III [of the ADA], a plaintiff must show that (1) he is disabled within the meaning of the
ADA; (2) the defendant is a private entity that owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation; and (3) the plaintiff was denied public accommodations by the defendant because of his disability," (Arizona ex rel. Goddard v. Harkins Amusement Enterprises, Inc. (9th Cir. 2010) 603 F.3d 666, 670.)
Defendants are correct that the FAC fails to adequately plead facts sufficient to state a claim under the ADA as it fails to include facts to show Plaintiff is disabled within the meaning of the ADA and that he was denied public accommodations by Defendants because of that disability.
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?”
The court need not at this time address the statute of limitations for claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act because Plaintiff appears to concede that this cause of action is not properly pleaded and indicates that the “focused amended will proceed primarily under section 504.” (See, Opp pg. 8:18-19.) Thus, it appears that Plaintiff concedes this cause of action needs amending. Accordingly, the Court SUSTAINS the demurrer to the 8th cause of action.
Based upon the foregoing, the Demurrer to the 1st through 11th causes of action is SUSTAINED. Further, as this is the first pleading challenge, leave to amend is GRANTED as to these causes of action.
Plaintiff is GRANTED 30 days leave to amend. Leave to amend also includes leave to correct proper party identification and add one additional cause of action under Health and Safety Code section 1278.5. This Court makes no findings on the legal sufficiency of such amendments at this time. Any amended Complaint must be filed within 30-days service of notice of ruling.
Moving Parties to give notice.
4 Meshhal vs. TENTATIVE RULING: Khan Defendant Mohammad Khan, M.D.’s motion to strike Plaintiff Sofyan Mohamed Meshhal’s Complaint is CONTINUED to October 21, 2026, at 9:00 a.m.in this department.
Code Civ. Proc. § 435.5, subd. (a) requires the following:
Before filing a motion to strike pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purpose of determining if