Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

PRUDENCE WRIGHT, an individual, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, MARIO EPHRIAM, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

KF SUNRAY, LLC, a California limited liability company, doing business as SUNRAY HEALTHCARE CENTER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:

24STCV15876

Hearing Date:

February 25, 2025

Hearing Time: 2:00 p.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

DEFENDANT KF SUNRAY, LLC dba SUNRAY HEALTHCARE CENTER’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT;

DEFENDANT KF SUNRAY, LLC dba SUNRAY HEALTHCARE CENTER’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Background

Plaintiffs Prudence Wright, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Mario Ephriam, and Mario Ephriam (jointly, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action on June 25, 2024 against Defendant KF Sunray, LLC, doing business as Sunray Healthcare Center (“Defendant”), and Nominal Defendant Shayne J. Wright. The Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) statutory elder abuse/neglect, (2) violation of patient’s bill of rights and health and safety codes, and (3) negligence.

Defendant now demurs to each of the causes of action of the Complaint and moves to strike portions of the Complaint. Plaintiffs oppose both.

Discussion

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Defendant’s counsel’s declarations filed in support of the demurrer and motion to strike indicate, inter alia, that “[o]n August 23, 2024, I sent a formal correspondence to Plaintiffs’ counsel, which discussed the legal and factual bases in Plaintiffs’ Complaint subjecting it to Demurrer and Motion to Strike, and requested that Plaintiffs’ counsel contact me to discuss this issue. (A true and correct copy of the August 23, 2024 meet and confer correspondence is attached as Exhibit A.) Unfortunately, we were not able to reach an agreement at this time.” (Hassell Decls., ¶ 2.)

The Court notes that Defendant’s counsel’s declarations and the exhibits attached thereto do not demonstrate that the parties met and conferred in person, by telephone, or by video conference, or that Defendant’s counsel attempted to do so. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a), “[b]efore filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference 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.” (Emphasis added.) In addition, “[b]efore filing a motion to strike pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the objections to be raised in the motion to strike.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a), emphasis added.) Such meeting and conferring must be done in good faith with an effort to try to resolve the issues subject to the demurrer and motion to strike.

In light of the foregoing, the hearing on Defendant’s demurrer and motion to strike is continued to _______________, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. in Dept. 50.

Defendant is¿ordered to meet¿and confer¿with Plaintiffs within 10 days of the date of this order.¿If the parties are unable to resolve the pleading issues¿or if the parties are otherwise unable to meet and confer in good faith, Defendant is to¿thereafter¿file and serve¿a declaration setting forth the efforts to meet and confer in compliance with¿Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a)(3) and Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5, subdivision (a)(3) within 15 days of this order.¿

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this order.

DATED: February 25, 2025 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court