demurrer test in California

1989Discussion “ ‘The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of plaintiffs’ pleading by raising questions of law. (3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Pleading, § 796, pp. 2408-2409.)’ (Buford v. State of California (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 811 , 818 . . . .) On appeal our only concern is whether appellant has succeeded in stating a cause of action.

1988(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 [ 86 Cal.Rptr. 65 , 468 P.2d 193 ].) The burden is on the appellant to show an abuse of discretion, and “ ‘unless a clear case of abuse is shown ... a reviewing court will not substitute its opinion and thereby divest the trial court of its discretionary power.’ [Citations.]” (Id., at p. 566.) “ ‘[Discretion is abused whenever the court exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances being considered. [Citations.]’ ” (Barajas v. USA Petroleum Corp. (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 974, 987-988 [ 229 Cal.Rptr. 513 ], citing People v. Giminez (1975)

2025Standard of Review “Because the function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of a pleading as a matter of law, we apply the de novo standard of review in an appeal following the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend.” (California Logistics, Inc. v. State of California (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 242, 247 .) “‘We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. [Citation.] We also consider matters which may be judicially noticed.’ [Citation.] Further, we give the complaint a reasonable 6 interpretation,

2025Standard of Review “Because the function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of a pleading as a matter of law, we apply the de novo standard of review in an appeal following the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend.” (California Logistics, Inc. v. State of California (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 242, 247 .) “‘We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. [Citation.] We also consider matters which may be judicially noticed.’ [Citation.] Further, we give the complaint a reasonable 6 interpretation,

2026Standards of Review “The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the complaint as a matter of law, and it raises only a question of law. [Citations.] On a question of law, we apply a de novo standard of review on appeal.” (Holiday Matinee, Inc. v. Rambus, Inc. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1413, 1420 .) “ ‘We review the trial court’s decision not to grant leave to amend for abuse of discretion. [Citation.] “ ‘[W]e must decide whether there is a reasonable possibility the plaintiff could cure the defect with an amendment. [Citation.] If we find that an amendment could cure the defect, we

2024Standard of review “The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the complaint as a matter of law, and it raises only a question of law.” (Holiday Matinee, Inc. v. Rambus, Inc. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1413, 1420 .) Therefore, we apply a de novo standard of review.

2022Rather, the phrase indicates that the ad is such that it is probable that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled.’” (Chapman v. Skype, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 217, 226 .) “California courts . . . have recognized that whether a business practice is deceptive will usually be a question of fact not appropriate for decision on demurrer.” (Williams v. Gerber Products Co. (9th Cir. 2008) 523 F.3d 934, 939 (Williams); Committee On Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197

2022Rather, the phrase indicates that the ad is such that it is probable that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled.’” (Chapman v. Skype, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 217, 226 .) “California courts . . . have recognized that whether a business practice is deceptive will usually be a question of fact not appropriate for decision on demurrer.” (Williams v. Gerber Products Co. (9th Cir. 2008) 523 F.3d 934, 939 ; Committee On Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 214 [not

1990(Buford v. State of *622 California (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 811, 818 []; Whitcombe v. County of Yolo (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 698, 702 [].) It is error to sustain a demurrer where a plaintiff has stated a cause of action under any legal theory.

1987(Whitcombe v. County of Yolo (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 698, 702 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 189 ].) “Because the demurrer tests the pleading alone, and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading.

2014(Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1153 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 819 ].) We are not concerned with plaintiff’s ability to prove the allegations or with any possible difficulties in making such proof.

2014(Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1153 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 819 ].) We are not concerned with plaintiff’s ability to prove the allegations or with any possible difficulties in making such proof.

2015“On appeal from a dismissal following the sustaining of a demurrer, this court reviews the complaint de novo to determine whether it alleges facts stating a cause of action under any legal theory. . . . [¶] Because the function of a demurrer is not to test the truth or accuracy of the facts alleged in the complaint, we assume the truth of all properly pleaded factual allegations. [Citation.] Whether the plaintiff will be able to prove these allegations is not relevant; our focus is on the legal sufficiency of the complaint.” (Los Altos Golf and Country Club v. County of Santa Clara (2008) 165

2015Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e), (a).)” (Debrunner v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 433, 438 .) “ ‘On appeal from a dismissal following the sustaining of a demurrer, this court reviews the complaint de novo to determine whether it alleges facts stating a cause of action under any legal theory. . . . [¶] Because the function of a demurrer is not to test the truth or accuracy of the facts alleged in the complaint, we assume the truth of all properly pleaded factual allegations. [Citation.] Whether the plaintiff will be able to prove these allegations is not relevant; our fo

2008A ruling on a general demurrer is thus a method of deciding the merits of the cause of action on assumed facts without a trial.” (Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 429, 437, fn. 4 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 179 , 2 P.3d 27 ].) “Neither trial nor appellate courts should be distracted from the main issue, or rather, the only issue involved in a demurrer hearing, namely, whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.” (Griffith v. Department of Public Works (1956) 141 Cal.App.2d 376, 381 [ 296 P.2d 838 ].) “On appeal from a judgment dismissing

2008A ruling on a general demurrer is thus a method of deciding the merits of the cause of action on assumed facts without a trial.” (Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 429, 437, fn. 4 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 179 , 2 P.3d 27 ].) “Neither trial nor appellate courts should be distracted from the main issue, or rather, the only issue involved in a demurrer hearing, namely, whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.” (Griffith v. Department of Public Works (1956) 141 Cal.App.2d 376, 381 [ 296 P.2d 838 ].) “On appeal from a judgment dismissing

1988Telegraph Co. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 1111, 1117 [ 222 Cal.Rptr. 239 ].) The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of a pleading by raising questions of law.

1988Telegraph Co. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 1111, 1117 [ 222 Cal.Rptr. 239 ].) The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of a pleading by raising questions of law.

2015“On appeal from a dismissal following the sustaining of a demurrer, this court reviews the complaint de novo to determine whether it alleges facts stating a cause of action under any legal theory. . . . [¶] Because the function of a demurrer is not to test the truth or accuracy of the facts alleged in the complaint, we assume the truth of all properly pleaded factual allegations. [Citation.] Whether the plaintiff will be able to prove these allegations is not relevant; our focus is on the legal sufficiency of the complaint.” (Los Altos Golf and Country Club v. County of Santa Clara (2008) 165

2015Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e), (a).)” (Debrunner v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 433, 438 .) “ ‘On appeal from a dismissal following the sustaining of a demurrer, this court reviews the complaint de novo to determine whether it alleges facts stating a cause of action under any legal theory. . . . [¶] Because the function of a demurrer is not to test the truth or accuracy of the facts alleged in the complaint, we assume the truth of all properly pleaded factual allegations. [Citation.] Whether the plaintiff will be able to prove these allegations is not relevant; our fo

2024(Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2023) ¶ 7:42.12.) “Where a trial court has concluded the plaintiff did not state sufficient facts to support a statutory claim and therefore sustained a demurrer as to that claim, a demurrer is also properly sustained as to a claim for declaratory relief which is ‘wholly derivative’ of the statutory claim. [Citation.]” (Ball v. FleetBoston Financial Corp. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 794, 800 .) As is evident from the complaint, the City’s declaratory relief claim is wholly derivative of the proposed cause of action f

2023It further asserts that “AAA’s disqualification would not be determined in the arbitration between the parties, and could not be duplicative.” “Where a trial court has concluded the plaintiff did not state sufficient facts to support a statutory claim and therefore sustained a demurrer as to that claim, a demurrer is also properly sustained as to a claim for declaratory relief which is ‘wholly derivative’ of the statutory claim.” (Ball v. FleetBoston Financial Corp. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 794, 800 ; see also § 1061 [“The court may refuse to exercise the power granted by this chapter in any cas

2021Because Mehdi fails to “enumerate the facts [alleged in the FAC] and demonstrate how those facts establish a cause of action” in her opening brief, we “cannot assess whether or not the trial court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend.” (Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp., supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at p. 890 .) We therefore conclude Mehdi failed to meet her burden on appeal of showing the trial court erroneously sustained the demurrer to her claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage without leave to amend.

2015(Ibid.)” (Campbell v. Regents of University of California (2005) 35 Cal.4th 311, 320 .) We “ ‘may . . . consider new theories on appeal from the sustaining of a demurrer to challenge or justify the ruling.’ ” (Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1396 (Alfaro).) “If another proper ground for sustaining the demurrer exists, this court will still affirm the demurrers even if the trial court relied on an improper ground, whether or not the defendants asserted the proper ground in the trial court.” (Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp. (1992

2024(See Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 47 [“ ‘[i]t is not the ordinary function of a demurrer to test the truth of the plaintiff’s allegations or the accuracy with which he describes the defendant’s conduct’ ”].) Thus, County argues the decision in the prior appeal merely “allowed [plaintiffs’] action to proceed so that they would have an opportunity to prove … a ‘separate contractual obligation beyond the tax sale procedure.’ ” Both parties make valid points.

2020(See Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 47 [“‘[I]t is not the ordinary function of a demurrer to test the truth of the plaintiff’s allegations or the accuracy with which [s]he describes the defendant’s conduct . . . . ‘[T]he question of plaintiff’s ability to prove these allegations, or the possible difficulty in making such proof does not concern the reviewing court.”’”].) 16 Commissioner Rob Manfred, the 30 major league baseball teams and many minor league teams disagree, all of them planning to expand protective netting in their stadiums substantially beyond t

2025The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action [citation].” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905 .) 7 B.

2007The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action [citation].” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905 [ 200 Cal.Rptr. 497 ].) The complaint as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.

2017(See Jones v. Omnitrans (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 273, 277 [dismissal of petition for writ of mandate after demurrer order reviewed under appellate rules for demurrer to a complaint].) We review the petition and complaint de novo “to determine whether it alleges facts stating a cause of action under any legal theory . . . . [¶] Because the function of a demurrer is not to test the truth or accuracy of the facts alleged in the complaint, we assume the truth of all properly pleaded factual allegations. [Citation.] Whether the plaintiff will be able to prove these allegations is not relevant; our fo

2015“On appeal from a dismissal following the sustaining of a demurrer, this court reviews the complaint de novo to determine whether it alleges facts stating a cause of action under any legal theory. . . . [¶] Because the function of a demurrer is not to test the truth or accuracy of the facts alleged in the complaint, we assume the truth of all properly pleaded factual allegations. [Citation.] Whether the plaintiff will be able to prove these allegations is not relevant; our focus is on the legal sufficiency of the complaint.” (Los Altos Golf and Country Club v. County of Santa Clara (2008) 165

2019Moreover, Olson cannot show a more favorable outcome would have resulted had the judge who heard her original motion to strike also ruled on her motion to reconsider the same. ( California Housing Finance Agency v. Hanover/California Management & Accounting Center, Inc. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 682 , 688, 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 92 [" 'When the trial court commits error in ruling on matters relating to pleadings, procedures, or other preliminary matters, reversal can generally be predicated thereon only if the appellant can show resulting prejudice, and the probability of a more favorable outcome, at tri

2019Moreover, Olson cannot show a more favorable outcome would have resulted had the judge who heard her original motion to strike also ruled on her motion to reconsider the same. ( California Housing Finance Agency v. Hanover/California Management & Accounting Center, Inc. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 682 , 688, 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 92 [" 'When the trial court commits error in ruling on matters relating to pleadings, procedures, or other preliminary matters, reversal can generally be predicated thereon only if the appellant can show resulting prejudice, and the probability of a more favorable outcome, at tri

2026However, we do not assume the truth of “ ‘ “contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” ’ ” (Evans v. City of Berkeley (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1, 6 .) Further, “ ‘[i]t is not the ordinary function of a demurrer to test the truth of the plaintiff’s allegations or the accuracy with which he describes the defendant’s conduct.

2015“On appeal from a dismissal following the sustaining of a demurrer, this court reviews the complaint de novo to determine whether it alleges facts stating a cause of action under any legal theory. . . . [¶] Because the function of a demurrer is not to test the truth or accuracy of the facts alleged in the complaint, we assume the truth of all properly pleaded factual allegations. [Citation.] Whether the plaintiff will be able to prove these allegations is not relevant; our focus is on the legal sufficiency of the complaint.” (Los Altos Golf and Country Club v. County of Santa Clara (2008) 165

2011Services, Inc. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 232 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 233 ] (Aragon-Haas), the court reversed a ruling sustaining the defendant’s demurrer to a claim for breach of a written employment agreement which the appellate court found to be ambiguous.

2011Services, Inc. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 232 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 233 ] (Aragon-Haas), the court reversed a ruling sustaining the defendant’s demurrer to a claim for breach of a written employment agreement which the appellate court found to be ambiguous.

2017(See Jones v. Omnitrans (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 273, 277 [dismissal of petition for writ of mandate after demurrer order reviewed under appellate rules for demurrer to a complaint].) We review the petition and complaint de novo “to determine whether it alleges facts stating a cause of action under any legal theory . . . . [¶] Because the function of a demurrer is not to test the truth or accuracy of the facts alleged in the complaint, we assume the truth of all properly pleaded factual allegations. [Citation.] Whether the plaintiff will be able to prove these allegations is not relevant; our fo

2016Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e), (a).) 'On appeal from a dismissal following the sustaining of a demurrer, this court reviews the complaint de novo to determine whether it alleges facts stating a cause of action under any legal theory.... [¶] Because the function of a demurrer is not to test the truth or accuracy of the facts alleged in the complaint, we assume the truth of all properly pleaded factual allegations. [Citation.] Whether the plaintiff will be able to prove these allegations is not relevant; our focus is on the legal sufficiency of the complaint.' " ( Debrunner v. Deutsche Bank Nation

2020Corp. v. City of Saratoga (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 949, 959 [“An appellate court may also consider new theories on appeal from the sustaining of a demurrer to challenge or justify the ruling. . . .

2009B & P Development Corp. v. City of Saratoga, supra, 185 Cal.App.3d at page 959 : “An appellate court may . . . consider new theories on appeal from the sustaining of a demurrer to challenge or justify the ruling.

2026Demurrer “Because the function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of a pleading as a matter of law, we apply the de novo standard of review in an appeal following the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend. [Citation.] We assume the truth of the allegations in the complaint, but do not assume the truth of contentions, deductions, or conclusions of law. [Citation.] It is error for the trial court to sustain a demurrer if the plaintiff has stated a cause of action under any possible legal theory, and it is an abuse of discretion for the court to sustain a demurrer without leave to

2026Demurrer “Because the function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of a pleading as a matter of law, we apply the de novo standard of review in an appeal following the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend. [Citation.] We assume the truth of the allegations in the complaint, but do not assume the truth of contentions, deductions, or conclusions of law. [Citation.] It is error for the trial court to sustain a demurrer if the plaintiff has stated a cause of action under any possible legal theory, and it is an abuse of discretion for the court to sustain a demurrer without leave to

2016Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e), (a).) 'On appeal from a dismissal following the sustaining of a demurrer, this court reviews the complaint de novo to determine whether it alleges facts stating a cause of action under any legal theory.... [¶] Because the function of a demurrer is not to test the truth or accuracy of the facts alleged in the complaint, we assume the truth of all properly pleaded factual allegations. [Citation.] Whether the plaintiff will be able to prove these allegations is not relevant; our focus is on the legal sufficiency of the complaint.' " ( Debrunner v. Deutsche Bank Nation

2016Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e), (a).) 'On appeal from a dismissal following the sustaining of a demurrer, this court reviews the complaint de novo to determine whether it alleges facts stating a cause of action under any legal theory.... [¶] Because the function of a demurrer is not to test the truth or accuracy of the facts alleged in the complaint, we assume the truth of all properly pleaded factual allegations. [Citation.] Whether the plaintiff will be able to prove these allegations is not relevant; our focus is on the legal sufficiency of the complaint.' " ( Debrunner v. Deutsche Bank Nation

2015Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e), (a).)” (Debrunner v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 433, 438 .) “ ‘On appeal from a dismissal following the sustaining of a demurrer, this court reviews the complaint de novo to determine whether it alleges facts stating a cause of action under any legal theory. . . . [¶] Because the function of a demurrer is not to test the truth or accuracy of the facts alleged in the complaint, we assume the truth of all properly pleaded factual allegations. [Citation.] Whether the plaintiff will be able to prove these allegations is not relevant; our fo

2014Trust Co. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 433, 438 .) " 'On appeal from a dismissal following the sustaining of a demurrer, this court reviews the complaint de novo to determine whether it alleges facts stating a cause of action under any legal theory.... [¶] Because the function of a demurrer is not to test the truth or accuracy of the facts alleged in the complaint, we assume the truth of all properly pleaded factual allegations. [Citation.] Whether the plaintiff will be able to prove these allegations is not relevant; our focus is on the legal sufficiency of the complaint.' " (Ibid., quoting Los Alt

2024All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.” (Denham v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 ; see also Simms v. Bear Valley Community Healthcare Dist. (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 391 , 406, fn. 5 [self-represented party is 6 Plaintiff also seems to contend it was Epiq’s counsel’s duty to disclose the existence of plaintiff’s communications with Epiq about his class settlement claims at the demurrer hearing.

2014(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 ; Gutierrez v. Autowest, Inc. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 77, 88 .) I Standard and Scope of Review The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the complaint by raising questions of law.

2025Co. (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 821 , 829.) “[T]he allegations of the complaint must be read in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and liberally construed with a view to attaining substantial justice among the parties.” (Venice Town Council v. City of L.A. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1547, 1557 .) “‘“We also consider matters which may be judicially noticed.” [Citation.] Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context. [Citation.] When a demurrer is sustained, we determine whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a c

2024Co. (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 821 , 829.) “[T]he allegations of the complaint must be read in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and liberally construed with a view to attaining substantial justice among the parties.” (Venice Town Council v. City of L.A. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1547, 1557 .) “‘“We also consider matters which may be judicially noticed.” [Citation.] Further, we give the complaint a reasonable 12 interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context. [Citation.] When a demurrer is sustained, we determine whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute