Demurrer to First Amended Complaint
(20) Tentative Ruling
Re: Arredondo v. Saint Agnes Medical Center Superior Court Case No. 25CECG04529
Hearing Date: May 28, 2026 (Dept. 403)
Motion: Demurrer to First Amended Complaint
Tentative Ruling:
To overrule, without prejudice to the filing of a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, sud. (e), (f).)
Explanation:
Defendant Saint Agnes Medical Center (“SAMC”) demurs to the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) filed by plaintiff Kathy Arredondo in this action on October 3, 2025. SAMC contends that FAC’s claims are barred by claim and issue preclusion, as the same causes of action and issues were litigated in a prior action, Arredondo v. Saint Agnes Medical Center, Case No. 21CECG02006 (Arredondo I).
Claim preclusion bars a party from pursuing a subsequent action based on the same cause of action after a final judgment on the merits, while issue preclusion prevents relitigation of issues that were actually litigated and necessarily decided in a prior proceeding. (City of Oakland v. Oakland Police & Fire Retirement System (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 210, 227.)
A demurrer must be overruled if the complaint states any valid claim entitling plaintiff to relief. If the essential facts of some valid cause of action are alleged, the complaint is good against a general demurrer. (Quelimane Co., Inc. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38-39; New Livable Calif. v. Association of Bay Area Governments (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 709, 714-715; Adelman v. Associated Int'l Ins. Co. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 352, 359; see Sheehan v. San Francisco 49ers, Ltd. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 992, 998 [general demurrer may be upheld “only if the complaint fails to state a cause of action under any possible legal theory”].)
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?”
A general demurrer does not lie to only part of a cause of action. If there are sufficient allegations to entitle plaintiff to relief, other allegations cannot be challenged by general demurrer. (Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1167, disapproved on other grounds by Sheen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2022) 12 C5th 905, 948, fn. 12.)
The demurrer is overruled because the moving papers contain nearly no discussion of the substance of the FAC’s allegations. SAMC’s memorandum of points and authorities contends that “[t]he majority of the factual allegations in the FAC are duplicative of those alleged in Arredondo I, including allegations concerning Plaintiffs employment with SAMC, her disability, and the "Do Not Use" notation in her employment file. (RJN ¶ 6, Ex. F.)” It is true that the FAC includes substantial allegations duplicative of those in Arredondo I, but the FAC “expressly disclaims any intent to relitigate claims” and asserts that the “instant claims arise from post-judgment conduct not previously 18
litigated.” (FAC ¶ 83.) SAMC’s moving papers include no discussion whatsoever of the FAC’s allegations of post-judgment conduct, and whether such is sufficient to state a cause of action under any theory. There is not one citation to allegations of the FAC. The moving papers seem to be an invitation for the court to do defense counsel’s work and analysis for them. The court declines to do so. The court intends to overrule the demurrer in light of the lack of discussion or analysis of the sufficiency of the alleged post-judgment conduct.
The court will not consider any such analysis provided for the first time in the reply brief, as to do so would deprive plaintiff the opportunity to respond. (See Maleti v. Wickers (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 181, 228.) Since the court is not ruing on the merits of the demurrer, the court authorizes SAMC to file a non-statutory motion for judgment on the pleading raising these grounds.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Tentative Ruling
Issued By: lmg on 5-26-26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)
19