DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
S-CV-0047785·placer·Civil·Personal Injury
Hearing 26 days agoMotion to strike GRANTED; Demurrer dropped as moot.

MORGAN, HAYLEY v. KAISER PERMANENTE

Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospital’s Motion to Strike the Second Amended Complaint (SAC); Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospital’s Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint (SAC)

Hearing date
Jul 24, 2026
Department
1
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Strike rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffMORGAN, HAYLEY
DefendantKAISER PERMANENTE
DefendantKAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITAL

Ruling

PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT FRIDAY, CIVIL LAW AND MOTION DEPARTMENT 1 COMMISSIONER CHRISTINE S. DEHR TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR JULY 24, 2026 AT 8:30 A.M.

6. S-CV-0047785 MORGAN, HAYLEY v. KAISER PERMANENTE

Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospital’s Motion to Strike the Second Amended Complaint (SAC)

The motion to strike is granted.

The SAC filed includes amendments beyond the scope of the August 5, 2025 order. Plaintiff’s prior motion for leave sought limited relief regarding the amendment of the named parties. The court afforded leave to allow plaintiff to replace erroneously named defendant “Kaiser Permanente” with “Kaiser Foundation Hospital”. No other relief was granted.

Plaintiff filed an untimely SAC, which includes additional claims that go beyond the scope of the leave authorized by the court. The motion is properly granted since the SAC is not drawn in conformity with the prior orders of the court.

The SAC, filed on October 31, 2025, is stricken in its entirety.

No further leave to amend is granted at this time. This does not, however, prevent plaintiff from filing a properly noticed motion to include a copy of any proposed amended pleading.

Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospital’s Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint (SAC)

The demurrer is dropped as moot in light of the court’s ruling on the motion to strike.

///

PLACER SUPERIOR COURT – DEPARTMENT 1 Friday Civil Law and Motion – Tentative Rulings

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share