Defendant’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint
2025CLCR052530: BLACKSTONE HAMILTON vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, A PUBLIC ENTITY DOING BUSINESS AS UCLA HEALTH, et al. 06/03/2026 in Department 43 Demurrer
The morning calendar in courtroom 43 will normally begin at 8:45. Please arrive for your hearing no later than 8:30 a.m. The door will be opened before the calendar is called.
The Court allows appearances by CourtCall and Zoom. Refer to the Courtroom 43 webpage for more information about remote appearances. If appearing by CourtCall, call in no later than 8:30 a.m. If you wish to appear by CourtCall, you must make arrangements with CourtCall by 4:00 p.m. the court day before your scheduled hearing. Requests for approval of a CourtCall appearance made on the morning of the hearing will not be granted. No exceptions will be made.
For Zoom appearances, all counsel appearing by Zoom must email the court at Courtroom43@ventura.courts.ca.gov with a simultaneous copy to all other counsel/selfrepresented parties no later than 3:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing. INCLUDE THE PHRASE "ZOOM APPEARANCE ON (DATE OF HEARING)" IN THE SUBJECT LINE OF YOUR EMAIL. The email must identify the person who will make the appearance. You will receive the login information for your appearance in reply to your email. If appearing by Zoom, log into the hearing no later than 8:30 a.m. The Court will transfer you to the meeting room when your matter is called. Additional instructions can be found on the Courtroom 43 webpage. When you log in to Zoom, be sure that your name and the case name are used as your Zoom name. IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW ALL OF THESE INSTRUCTIONS, YOU WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO APPEAR BY ZOOM AT THE HEARING.
With respect to the tentative ruling below, no notice of intent to appear is required. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling you can fax notice to Judge Coats's secretary, Ms. Brantner at 805- 477-8790, stating that you submit on the tentative. Or you may email Courtroom43@ventura.courts.ca.gov with all counsel copied on the email. Do not call in lieu of sending a fax or email. If you submit on the tentative without appearing and the opposing party appears, the hearing will be conducted in your absence. If you are the moving party and do not advise the Court that you submit on the tentative, or you do not appear at the hearing, the Court may deny your motion irrespective of the tentative.
Unless stated otherwise at the hearing, if a formal order is required but not signed at the hearing, the prevailing party shall prepare a proposed order and comply with CRC 3.1312 subdivisions (a), (b), (d) and (e). The signed order shall be served on all parties and a proof of service filed with the court. A "notice of ruling" in lieu of this procedure is not authorized.
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?”
Motion: Defendant’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint
2025CLCR052530: BLACKSTONE HAMILTON vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, A PUBLIC ENTITY DOING BUSINESS AS UCLA HEALTH, et al.
Tentative Ruling: Defendant’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint (FAC) is SUSTAINED without leave to amend as to the medical negligence claim. The one-year statute of limitation expired almost a year prior to the filing of the complaint regardless of how broadly the discovery rule is applied.
The demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend as to the Unruh Act claim. The FAC does not allege any disparity in treatment based on the questioning by the medical professional. Leave to amend is limited to the Unruh Act claim and does not extend to and not to add additional causes of action because those causes of action are related to the defects in the Unruh Act.
Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint on or before June 27, 2026.
Moving party is ordered to serve notice of the Court’s ruling.
DISCUSSION
I.
Legal Standard
A. Demurrer” A defendant must file a demurrer to the complaint within 30 days of service unless extended by stipulation or court order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.40. subd. (a).) The grounds for a demurrer must appear on the face of the pleading or from judicially noticeable matters. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a); Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) Concerning the legal sufficiency of a pleading, the sole issue on demurrer is whether the facts pleaded, if true, state a valid cause of action – i.e., if the complaint pleads facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief. (LiMandri v.
Judkins (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 326, 339.) It is an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is a reasonable probability that the defect can be cured by amendment. (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1081.)"" " A general demurrer admits the truth of all factual, material allegations properly pled in the challenged pleading, regardless of possible difficulties of proof. (Blank, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318.) Thus, no matter how unlikely or improbable, plaintiff’s allegations must be accepted as true for the purpose of ruling on the demurrer. (Del E.
Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604.) Nevertheless, this rule does not apply to allegations expressing mere conclusions of law, or allegations contradicted by the exhibits to the complaint or by matters of which judicial notice may be taken. (Vance v. Villa Park Mobilehome Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 698, 709.) A general demurrer does not admit contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the complaint; facts impossible in law; or allegations contrary to facts of which a court may take judicial notice. (Blank, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318.)
II. Application
A. Unruh Claim
1. Statute of Limitations
2025CLCR052530: BLACKSTONE HAMILTON vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, A PUBLIC ENTITY DOING BUSINESS AS UCLA HEALTH, et al.
The two-year Unruh limitations period and the October 16, 2025, filing date create a thin margin that turns entirely on when the clock started running. Defendants argue that the accrual was October 13, 2023, which would make the filing three days late. Plaintiff argues the claim accrued when the written notation was discovered and not when the verbal question was asked.
The FAC alleges that Plaintiff did not initially frame the encounter as discriminatory. (FAC ¶21). He also did not discover the written notation until after his HIV test results returned. (FAC ¶22). Accepting these factual allegations as true at the pleading stage, the factual question of what Plaintiff knew and when is not appropriate for disposition on demur. On the face of the FAC, the Court finds that the statute of limitations as to the Unruh claim did not run under the demurrer standard.
2. Unruh Claim
All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.
Defendants argue the Unruh Act requires an outright denial or refusal of services, and that an unwelcome clinical question with a stigmatizing chart note doesn’t cross that threshold. Plaintiff argues the Act is broadly construed to cover discrimination in the quality and character of services rendered, not merely their outright denial. The FAC does not allege facts that indicate that Plaintiff was denied or refused services, or that there was a difference in the quality and character of services rendered. The FAC explicitly alleges the question was asked after medical services were rendered professionally. (FAC ¶¶ 18-20.) The alleged act occurred after services were rendered. (FAC ¶¶ 18-27.) These allegations are insufficient regardless of how broadly the scope of the Unruh Act is applied. The Court sustains the demurrer with leave to amend as to the first cause of action.
B. Medical Negligence
Plaintiff characterizes the verbal question as a dignitary harm at the time it was delivered. (FAC ¶ 20.) Plaintiff promptly obtained HIV testing in direct response to the clinical implication, demonstrating contemporaneous recognition of something potentially significant. (FAC ¶ 21.) Regardless of how broadly the discovery rule is applied, one year from any plausible discovery date in October 2023 puts the limitations deadline in October 2024. The complaint was filed October 16, 2025, roughly a year after that mark.
Plaintiff’s arguments about the ongoing institutional harm through December 2023 and the December 28 amendment are irrelevant to when the Plaintiff first suspected or reasonably should have suspected wrongdoing. The FAC’s allegations preclude Plaintiff from claiming he didn't suspect wrongdoing until December 2023. The Court sustains the demurrer on the medical
2025CLCR052530: BLACKSTONE HAMILTON vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, A PUBLIC ENTITY DOING BUSINESS AS UCLA HEALTH, et al.
negligence claim without leave to amend, because no conceivable amendment could cure the running of the statute of limitations.
C. Additional Causes of Action
The additional causes of action Plaintiff proposed to add are unrelated to the defects in FAC and this is not the proper procedure to add them in an amendment to the complaint. As such, the Court limits the scope of allowed amendment to curing the deficiencies in the Unruh Act claim as described above. Plaintiff may file a separate code compliant motion for leave to amend to add the new causes of action if he desires.
4