Judge: Melissa R. Mccormick, Case: "Licea v. Nextgen Healthcare, Inc.", Date: 2022-06-30 Tentative Ruling

Defendant NextGen Healthcare, Inc.’s Demurrer to Complaint

Defendant NextGen Healthcare, Inc. demurs to plaintiff Luis Licea’s complaint.  For the following reasons, defendant’s demurrer is sustained with leave to amend.

In ruling on a demurrer, a court must accept as true all allegations of fact contained in the complaint.  Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.  A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the affected pleading, not the truth of the factual allegations in the pleading or the pleader’s ability to prove those allegations.  Cundiff v. GTE Cal., Inc. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1404-05.  Questions of fact cannot be decided on demurrer.  Berryman v. Merit Prop. Mgmt., Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1556.  Because a demurrer tests only the sufficiency of the complaint, a court will not consider facts that have not been alleged in the complaint unless they may be reasonably inferred from the matters alleged or are proper subjects of judicial notice.  Hall v. Great W. Bank (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 713, 718 n.7.

Plaintiff alleges he is “a blind individual who requires screen reading software to read website content and access the internet.”  Complaint ¶ 5.  Plaintiff alleges defendant “maintains its website . . . in such a way that it contains numerous access barriers preventing Plaintiff, and other blind and visually-impaired individuals, from gaining equal access to the Website.”  Id.  Plaintiff alleges defendant has thus violated plaintiff’s rights under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.  Id.

Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege sufficient facts to state a claim against defendant.  Plaintiff does not allege specific facts about the “accessibility barriers” he allegedly encountered on defendant’s website, nor does plaintiff allege any facts regarding defendant’s alleged “products and services,” defendant’s “business,” or plaintiff’s efforts to access defendant’s website.  Plaintiff’s general summary of “barriers” he allegedly encountered on defendant’s website does not state sufficient facts showing how plaintiff encountered the alleged barriers on defendant’s specific website.  Indeed, it is unclear from plaintiff’s conclusory complaint how plaintiff contends defendant’s specific website violates the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which renders the court unable to evaluate the parties’ arguments regarding allegedly intentional discrimination and/or alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Should plaintiff desire to file an amended complaint addressing the issues in this ruling, plaintiff must file and serve it by July 14, 2022.  If plaintiff files an amended complaint, plaintiff should endeavor to allege specific facts supporting his cause of action against this specific defendant.

Plaintiff’s and defendant’s requests for judicial notice and defendant’s reply request for judicial notice are denied.  The items of which the parties seek judicial notice are not relevant, not material to the disposition of the demurrer, and/or not the proper subject(s) of judicial notice.

The court disregarded plaintiff’s unauthorized “response” to defendant’s reply request for judicial notice and Supplemental Ferrell Declaration.

Defendant to give notice.

Case Management Conference

The trial is scheduled for August 28, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C13.

Clerk to give notice.