PHILLIPS, ET AL. VS. PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., ET AL.

CASE NUMBER: 25CV-0208680 Tentative Ruling on Demurrer (by Defendant County of Shasta): Defendant County of Shasta demurs to the Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Fredrick James Phillips and Heather Lynn Phillips. Plaintiffs oppose the demurrer.

Meet and Confer. CCP § 430.41 requires the demurring party to “meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” The Declaration of Dominick Hurley provides evidence of sufficient meet and confer efforts.

Merits. While the issue was not raised by either party, immunity regarding the Second Cause of Action for violation of the Confidentiality Medical Information Act, the Third Cause of Action for violation of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, and the Seventh Cause of Action for disability discrimination and failure to provide reasonable accommodation was not raised by the County in its first demurrer.

CCP § 430.41(b) provides “A party demurring to a pleading that has been amended after a demurrer to an earlier version of the pleading was sustained shall not demur to any portion of the amended complaint, crosscomplaint, or answer on grounds that could have been raised by demurrer to the earlier version of the complaint, cross-complaint, or answer.”

“If the party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed fails to object to the pleading, either by demurrer or answer, that party is deemed to have waived the objection unless it is an objection that the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading or an objection that the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” CCP § 430.80(a).

Pursuant to CCP § 430.41