Challenging the Complaint - Legal Study Guide

8/3/2019 Challenging the Complaint - Legal Study Guide

1/112

Copyright 1996 2002 Stratton Press. All r ights reserved. Revision 6/27/02.

Summary of ContentsTable of Contents

Update

Support the Handbookproject! Contribute today! Get your personal cdrom!

Chapter 11Challenging theComplaint

Table of Contents 11.01 Introduction 11.02 Demurrers

[A] Matters Considered[1] The Complaint

[2] Judicial Notice[a] Subjects of Judicial Notice[i] Cour t Records[ii] Official Acts

[b] Procedure for Taking JudicialNotice

[B] Grounds[1] General Demurrers

[a] Failure to State Facts Sufficientto Constitute a Cause of Action[i] Effect of Allegations

[I] Resolution of

Inconsistencies
http://civpr96f.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/


2/112


Challenging the ComplaintTable of Contents


Update


[II] Interpretation ofAmbiguous Instruments

[ii] Federal Preemption[iii] Omission of an Element of

the Plaintiffs Cause ofAction

[iv] Defense Disclosed on Faceof Complaint[ I] Statute of Limitat ions[II ] Laches[III] Unclean Hands

[IV] Contract Defenses[V] Res Judicata[VI] Plaintiff Not the Real

Party in Interest[VII]Privilege

[b] Lack of Subject Matter

Jurisdiction[2] Special Demurrers

[a] Uncerta inty[b] Written or Oral Contract[c] Attorneys Certificate[d] Pleas in Abatement


3/112


Challenging the Complaint


Update


[i] Plaintiff s Lack of Capacityto Sue

[ii] Another Action Pending[iii] Misjoinder of Parties

[C] Procedure[1] Form

[2] Timing[3] Opposing the Demurrer[4] The Hearing[5] The Ruling[6] Procedure Following the Sustaining

of a Demurrer[a] Leave to Amend[b] Application for Dismissal[c] Procedure Following

Amendment of the Complaint[d] Judgment of Dismissal

[7] Procedure Following Overruling ofDemurrer

[8] Appellate Review[a] Demurrer Sustained[b] Demurrer Overruled

11.03 Motions to Strike

[A] Grounds


4/112


Challenging the Complaint


Update


[B] Timing[C] The Ruling[D] Appellate Review[E] Claims Arising from a Persons Exercise

of the Constitutional Right of Petition orFree Speech

[1] Public Issues[2] Plaintiffs Showing


5/112


Challenging the Complaint 11.01 Introduction


Update


11.01 IntroductionIf the defendant cannot dispose of the plaintiffs

action on procedural grounds by challenging theservice of process, the courts personal jurisdiction,or the plaintiffs choice of venue, then the defendantmust consider whether to attack either the form orthe substance of the plaintiffs complaint. Though thelaw provides a variety of tools to accomplish thistask, the defendants lawyer should consider thetactical ramifications of employing any of them.

If the defendant has a plausible argument that the

court lacks jurisdiction over him, his best course ofaction is almost certainly a motion to quash serviceof the summons and complaint. If he succeeds, hemay well avoid litigation altogether, for the plaintiffmay not have the resources or the will to bring hisaction in a court that has jurisdiction over thedefendant. In contrast, if the defendant has aplausible argument that the plaintiffs complaint isdefective in form or substance, an attack on thecomplaint is unlikely to dispose of the case. If thedefect concerns merely a matter of form, a successful

attack will yield nothing more than a order allowing

Chapter: ChallengingService of the Summons

Challenging the CourtsJurisdiction:Challenging PersonalJurisdiction

Chapter: Challengingthe Plaintiffs Choice ofForum
http://civpr96f.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://ch02-02_.pdf/http://ch02-02_.pdf/http://ch02-02_.pdf/http://ch02-02_.pdf/http://ch02-03_.pdf/http://ch02-03_.pdf/http://ch02-03_.pdf/http://ch02-03_.pdf/http://ch02-04_.pdf/http://ch02-04_.pdf/http://ch02-04_.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/http://ch02-04_.pdf/http://ch02-04_.pdf/http://ch02-03_.pdf/http://ch02-03_.pdf/http://ch02-02_.pdf/http://ch02-02_.pdf/http://ch02-02_.pdf/http://ch02-02_.pdf/


6/112


Challenging the Complaint 11.01 Introduction


Update


the plaintiff the amend the complaint to cure thedefect. If the complaint is unclear or incomplete, thedefendant can more easily obtain the missinginformation by means of discovery. If the defectconcerns the plaintiffs attempt to plead a cause ofaction, a successful attack will probably yield nothing

more than an order permitting the plaintiff to correctthe mistakes the defendant has so generouslybrought to his attention.

In general, the only time it makes sense to attackthe complaint is when the plaintiff has not alleged

facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action andcannot do so through amendment of his complaint.The primary tool for this task is the demurrer, thoughthe defendant may, if he wishes, raise his objectionsin his answer.1

1 CODE CIV. PROC. 430.30(b), .80(a). See generally ROBERT I.WEIL & IRA A. BROWN, JR., CALIFORNIA PRACTICE GUIDE: CIVIL PROCEDURE

BEFORE TRIAL 7:31 (1999).
http://civpr96f.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://ch05-01_.pdf/http://ch05-01_.pdf/http://ch01-05_.pdf/http://ch01-05_.pdf/http://ch02-06_.pdf/http://ch02-06_.pdf/http://ch02-06_.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/http://ch02-06_.pdf/http://ch01-05_.pdf/http://ch01-05_.pdf/http://ch05-01_.pdf/


7/112


Challenging the Complaint 11.02 Demurrers


Update


11.02 DemurrersA demurrer, though it takes the form of a motion, is

a pleading.2 By demurring a defendant makes ageneral appearance in the action.3

[A] Matters Considered

Demurrers have almost nothing to do with the truthof the plaintiffs allegations. Rather, they ask thequestion, Even if we assume that everything theplaintiff alleges is true, would the plaintiff be entitledto a legal remedy?4 In ruling upon a demurrer, thecourt must ignore the factual improbability of theplaintiffs allegations and focus its attention on theirlegal sufficiency. A demurrer challenges only the

2 CODE CIV. PROC. 422.10. See generally ROBERT I. WEIL & IRA A.BROWN, JR., CALIFORNIA PRACTICE GUIDE: CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL

7:6:7a (1999); 5 B.E. WITKIN, CALIFORNIA PROCEDURE, Pleading 899, 904 (4th ed. 1997).3 CODE CIV. PROC. 1014. One may not use a demurrer in a

family law case. RULESOF CT. 1215(a).4 CODE CIV. PROC. 589(a). See generally ROBERT I. WEIL & IRA A.

BROWN, JR., CALIFORNIA PRACTICE GUIDE: CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL 7:5, :11 (1999); 5 B.E. WITKIN, CALIFORNIA PROCEDURE, Pleading

900, 908 (4th ed. 1997).

Demurrers: Procedure
http://civpr96f.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://ch02-01_.pdf/http://ch01-03_.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/http://ch01-03_.pdf/http://ch02-01_.pdf/


8/112




Update


legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of itsfactual allegations or the plaintiffs ability to provethose allegations.5 Given the demurrers particularfunction, the court limits its examination to thecomplaint and to matters of which the court may take judicial notice.6 This means that the plaintiff can

postpone a confrontation by pleading aroundunpleasant facts or by framing his complaint incommon counts, provided that other counts of thecomplaint do not specifically plead facts showing thatthe common counts lack merit.7

5 Nast v. State Bd. of Equalization, 46 Cal. App. 4th 343, 346n.2, 53 Cal. Rptr. 2d 592, 593 n.2 (1996).

6 Blank v. Kirwan, 39 Cal. 3d 311, 318, 703 P.2d 58, 61, 216Cal. Rptr. 718, 721 (1985); Afuso v. United States Fidelity &Guar. Co., 169 Cal. App. 3d 859, 862, 215 Cal. Rptr. 490, 492

(1985), overruled on other grounds, Moradi-Shalal v.Fireman's Fund Ins. Cos., 46 Cal. 3d 287, 311, 758 P.2d 58, 73,250 Cal. Rptr. 116, 131 (1988).

7 Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co., 123 Cal. App.3d 593, 601, 176 Cal. Rptr. 824, 828 (1981) (court must sustaina demurrer to a common count if the plaintiff is not entitled torecover under those counts in the complaint in which he

specifically pleaded the facts upon which his claim is based).


9/112




Update


Example: P sues D for malpractice. D demurs to thecomplaint on the ground that P s claim isbarred by the statute of limitations. Tocircumvent Ps allegations of late discovery,D supports his demurrer with a hospitalrecord purporting to show P s earlier

knowledge. The court sustains thedemurrer.

The court erred. Evidentiary materialother than matter subject to judicial noticehas no bearing on the legal sufficiency of

the facts alleged.8

[1] The Complaint

A demurrer admits, for the limited purpose ofassessing the sufficiency of the complaint, the well-pleaded facts set forth in the complaint.9 The court

must assume the truth of such allegations.

10

Ademurrer does not, however, admit improperlypleaded matter, such as legal conclusions.11

8 Tyree v. Epstein, 99 Cal. App. 2d 361, 36465, 221 P.2d

1002, 1005 (1950).
http://civpr96f.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://ch01-05_.pdf/http://ch01-05_.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/http://ch01-05_.pdf/


10/112




Update


In addition to the allegations in the complaint, thecourt may consider evidentiary facts found in recitalsof exhibits attached to a complaint.12 If documentsare the foundation of an action and are attached tothe complaint and incorporated in the complaint byreference, they become a part of the complaint and

may be considered on demurrer.13 The court may

9 Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., 19 Cal. 4th 26, 38,19 Cal. 4th 253B, 960 P.2d 513, 519, 77 Cal. Rptr.2d 709, 715(1998); Aragon-Haas v. Family Sec. Ins. Servs., Inc., 231 Cal.

App. 3d 232, 23839, 282 Cal. Rptr. 233, 237 (1991). Seegenerally 5 B.E. WITKIN, CALIFORNIA PROCEDURE, Pleading 903 (4thed. 1997).

10 Blank v. Kirwan, 39 Cal. 3d 311, 318, 703 P.2d 58, 61, 216Cal. Rptr. 718, 721 (1985).

11 Moncur v. City of Los Angeles, Dept. of Airports, 68 Cal.

App. 3d 118, 121, 137 Cal. Rptr. 239, 240 (1977).12 Frantz v. Blackwell, 189 Cal. App. 3d 91, 94, 234 Cal. Rptr.2d 178, 17980 (1987). See generally ROBERT I. WEIL & IRA A.BROWN, JR., CALIFORNIA PRACTICE GUIDE: CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL 7:9 (1999); 5 B.E. WITKIN, CALIFORNIA PROCEDURE, Pleading 901(4th ed. 1997).

13 City of Pomona v. Superior Court, 89 Cal. App. 4th 793, ???,

90 Cal. App. 4th 87B, 107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 710, 715 (2001).


11/112




Update


also consider allegations in a supersededcomplaint.14

[2] Judicial Notice

The defendant may demur to a complaint if thegrounds for the objection to the complaint appear

from any matter of which the court is permitted orrequired to take judicial notice.15 The court may treatrelevant matters that are properly the subject of judicial notice as allegations in the complaint.16

[a] Subjects of Judicial Notice

The court must take judicial notice of

California and federal case law and statutes17

California and federal administrative regulations18

the rules of professional conduct for lawyers19

14 Frantz v. Blackwell, 189 Cal. App. 3d 91, 94, 234 Cal. Rptr.2d 178, 17980 (1987).

15 CODE CIV. PROC. 430.30(a). See generally ROBERT I. WEIL & IRAA. BROWN, JR., CALIFORNIA PRACTICE GUIDE: CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL 7:12 (1999).

16 Construction Protective Servs., Inc. v. TIG Specialty Ins. Co.,90 Cal. App. 4th 149, 155, 108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 282, 286 (2001).

Motions: Judicial Notice
http://civpr96f.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://ch02-01_.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/http://ch02-01_.pdf/


12/112




Update


the California Rules of Court20

the rules of the federal courts21

the meanings of words, phrases, and legalexpressions22

facts and proposition of generalized knowledge

that are so universally known that they cannotreasonably be the subject of dispute.23

The court may take judicial notice of

17 EVID. CODE 451(a) . But cf. McDowell v. Watson, 59 Cal.

App. 4th 1155, 1161 n.3, 69 Cal. Rptr. 2d 692, 697 n.3 (1997)(letters to particular legislators by various supporters and criticsof the legislation, bill analyses prepared by executivedepartments, enrolled bill reports to the governor, and lettersfrom the bills authors or sponsors to the governor are notproper subject of judicial notice).

See generally ROBERT I. WEIL & IRA A. BROWN, JR., CALIFORNIAPRACTICE GUIDE: CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL 7:12, :17.4 (1999).

18 11 U.S.C. 1507; EVID. CODE 451(b); GOV. CODE 11343.6(d), 11344.6, 18576 (state civil service regulations).

19 EVID. CODE 451(c) .20 EVID. CODE 451(c) .21 EVID. CODE 451(d) .

22 EVID. CODE 451(e) .


13/112




Update


the case law and statutes of other states24

legislative enactments and regulations of otherpublic entities25

official acts of state and federal legislative,executive, and judicial departments26

23 EVID. CODE 451(f); Gould v. Maryland Sound Indus., Inc., 31Cal. App. 4th 1137, 1145, 37 Cal. Rptr. 2d 718, 722 (1995) (theexistence of a contract between private parties cannot beestablished by judicial notice as a fact or proposition that is notreasonably subject to dispute and is capable of immediate and

accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonablyindisputable accuracy).

24 EVID. CODE 452(a) ; cf. Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. FranchiseTax Bd., 76 Cal. App. 4th 914, ??, 77 Cal. App. 4th 512B, 90Cal. Rptr. 2d 768, 770 n.2 (1999) (court took judicial notice ofthe web sites of the New Mexico legislature and governor);

Chong v. Superior Court, 58 Cal. App. 4th 1032, 1035, 68 Cal.Rptr. 2d 427, 429 (1997) (court took judicial notice of the treatybetween Britain and China on the status of Hong Kong).

25 EVID. CODE 452(b) ; see, e.g., Haggis v. City of Los Angeles,22 Cal. 4th 490, 501 n.3, 993 P.2d 983, ?? n.3, 93 Cal. Rptr.2d327, 334 n.3 (2000) (municipal code provisions); BeresfordNeighborhood Assn v. City of San Mateo, 207 Cal. App. 3d

1180, 255 Cal. Rptr. 434 (1989) (same).


14/112




Update


records of any California court or of any court ofrecord of the United States or of another state27

the rules of any California court or of any court ofrecord of the United States or of another state28

the laws of international organizations29

facts and propositions that are of such commonknowledge within the courts territorial jurisdictionthat they cannot reasonably be disputed30

facts and propositions that are not reasonablysubject to dispute and are capable of immediateand accurate determination by resort to sources

of reasonably indisputable accuracy.31

26 EVID. CODE 452(c) ; see, e.g., Etcheverry v. Tri-Ag Serv.,Inc., 22 Cal. 4th 316, 33031, 993 P.2d 366, 374, 93 Cal. Rptr.2d 36, 45 (2000) (pesticide regulation of EnvironmentalProtection Agency); Fowler v. Howell, 42 Cal. App. 4th 1746,174950, 50 Cal. Rptr. 2d 484, 486 (1996) (factual findingsadopted by State Personnel Board).

27 EVID. CODE 452(d); Cochran v. Cochran, 56 Cal. App. 4th1115, 1120, 66 Cal. Rptr. 2d 337, 340 (1997).

28 EVID. CODE 452(e) .29 EVID. CODE 452( f) .

30 EVID. CODE 452(g) .

Court Records


15/112




Update


Judicial notice becomes mandatory if the defendant(1) requests that the court take judicial notice of anyof the matters as to which judicial notice isdiscretionary, (2) gives the plaintiff sufficient notice ofthe request to enable him to prepare to meet therequest, and (3) furnishes the court with sufficient

information to enable it to take judicial notice of thematter.32 There is, however, a precondition to thetaking of judicial notice in either its mandatory orpermissive formany matter to be judicially noticedmust be relevant to a material issue.33

[i] Cour t RecordsIf the defendant provides the plaintiff and the court

certified copies of other court records, the court musttake judicial notice of those records.34 If thoserecords establish one of the grounds for demurring,the court will sustain the defendants demurrer.35

31 EVID. CODE 452(h) .32 EVID. CODE 453.33 People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co., 24 Cal. 4th

415, 11 P. 3d 956, 101 Cal. Rptr. 2d 200 (2000).


16/112




Update


Though judicial notice is appropriate to establishthe existence of material in court records, the courtmay not take judicial notice of the content of theserecords for the purpose of establishing the truth of

34

LOS ANGELES SUPER. CT. R. 9.16(c); S.F. SUPER. CT. R. 8.9(C)(2);Construction Protective Servs., Inc. v. TIG Specialty Ins. Co., 90Cal. App. 4th 149, 155, 108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 282, 286 (2001); ALHolding Co. v. OBrien & Hicks, Inc., 75 Cal. App. 4th 1310, 89Cal. Rptr. 2d 918, 919 (1999). If the material is part of a file inthe court in which the matter is pending, the party must specifyin writing the part of the court file sought to be judicially noticed

and make arrangements with the clerk to have the file in thecourtroom at the time of the hearing. RULESOF CT. 323(b). Somelocal rules require the party seeking judicial notice to file hisrequest for judicial notice a certain amount of time before thehearing to enable the clerk to locate the file. See, e.g., LOSANGELES SUPER. CT. R. 9.16(c) (request must be filed at least five

days before the hearing); S.F. SUPER. CT. R. 8.9(B). See generallyROBERT I. WEIL & IRA A. BROWN, JR., CALIFORNIA PRACTICE GUIDE: CIVILPROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL 7:15:15.3 (1999).

35 See, e.g., Frommhagen v. Board of Supervisors, 197 Cal.App. 3d 1292, 1299, 243 Cal. Rptr. 390, 393 (1987) (cause ofaction barred by res judicata); Bistawros v. Greenberg, 189 Cal.App. 3d 189, 19192, 234 Cal. Rptr. 377, 378 (1987) (another

action pending).


17/112




Update


that content. Judicial notice of the truth of thecontent of court records is appropriate only when theexistence of the record itself precludes contraventionof that which is recited in it, for example wherefindings of fact, conclusions of law, or judgmentsbind a party for purposes of res judicata or collateral

estoppel. Otherwise, the content of the court recordsconstitutes hearsay, and the truth of the content isreasonably subject to dispute.36 A court, afterhearing a factual dispute between litigants A and B,may choose to believe A, and make a finding of factin A s favor. Later, another court may properly take judicial notice that the first court did in fact make thatparticular finding in favor of A, but the second courtmay not take judicial notice that the fact so found isthe truth. The taking of judicial notice that the firstcourt ruled in favor of A on a particular factual

36 StorMedia Inc. v. Superior Court, 20 Cal. 4th 449, 456 n.9,976 P.2d 214, 219 n.9, 84 Cal. Rptr. 2d 843, 848 n.9 (1999);Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz &McCort, 91 Cal. App. 4th 875, 882, 110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 877, 882(2001); Fowler v. Howell, 42 Cal. App. 4th 1746, 50 Cal. Rptr.

2d 484 (1996).


18/112




Update


dispute is different from the taking of judicial noticethat A s testimony must necessarily have been truesimply because the court believed A and not B.37

Example: P sues D for violating the Political ReformAct of 197438 for failing to report a loan inhis disclosure statement. D demurs to P s

complaint on the ground that the loan wasa regular bank loan made to students andwas therefore excluded from the Actsdisclosure requirement. The court sustainsthe demurrer after taking judicial notice of

the contents of a sworn affidavit filed inanother action.

The court erred. A court may take judicialnotice of the existence of each document ina court file but cannot take judicial noticeof hearsay allegations as being true, just

because they are part of a court record orfile.39 If, however, P was a party to the

37 Sisinsky v. Grant, 6 Cal. App. 4th 1548, 156465, 8 Cal.Rptr. 2d 552, 56162 (1992).

38 GOV. CODE 81000 et seq.


19/112




Update


prior action, judicial notice of the fact thata final judgment was entered against himmay support the sustaining of D s demurreron the ground that P s claim is barred byres judicata or collateral estoppel.40

[ ii ] Official Acts

Courts have upheld the taking of judicial notice of awide variety of official acts, including

the fi l ing of a statement of identity the secretaryof states Roster of Public Agencies41

the insurance commissioners release of a

reinsurer from liability for an insolvent insurersdebts42

39 Bach v. McNelis, 207 Cal. App. 3d 852, 865, 255 Cal. Rptr.232, 238 (1989).

40

Frommhagen v. Board of Supervisors, 197 Cal. App. 3d1292, 1299, 243 Cal. Rptr. 390, 393 (1987)41 Elmore v. Oak Valley Hosp. Dist., 204 Cal. App. 3d 716, 722,

251 Cal. Rptr. 405, 409 (1988). See generally ROBERT I. WEIL &IRA A. BROWN, JR., CALIFORNIA PRACTICE GUIDE: CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORETRIAL 7:17.117.3 (1999).

42 Ascherman v. General Reinsurance Corp., 183 Cal. App. 3d

307, 31011, 228 Cal. Rptr. 1, 23 (1986).


20/112




Update


the recording of entries in a sheriff s bookingsheet.43

The court may sustain a demurrer based on judicialnotice only in those instances in which there is not orcannot be a factual dispute concerning that for whichthe defendant seeks judicial notice. The court may

not take judicial notice of an official act when thepublic entitys performance of the official act isdisputed.44

[b] Procedure for Taking JudicialNotice

If the defendant bases his demurrer on a matter asto which judicial notice is discretionary, he mustspecify the matter in the demurrer or in hismemorandum of points and authorities45 and provide

43

Scannell v. County of Riverside, 152 Cal. App. 3d 596, 605,199 Cal. Rptr. 644, 648 (1984).44 De Cruz v. County of Los Angeles, 173 Cal. App. 3d 1131,

1134, 219 Cal. Rptr. 661, 663 (1985) (judicial notice of publicentitys customary practice in respect of mailing notices ofrejection of claims did not establish that such practice had beenfollowed in a particular case).

45 CODE CIV. PROC. 430.70.


21/112




Update


the court and each party with a copy of thematerial.46 If the material is part of a fi le in the courtin which the matter is being heard, the partyrequesting judicial notice must specify in writing thepart of the file for which he seeks judicial notice andmust make arrangements with the clerk to have the

file in the courtroom at the time of the hearing.47 Thecourt must afford each party a reasonable opportunityto present to the court information relevant to thepropriety of taking judicial notice or the substance ofthe judicially noticed matter.48 The court may alsoconsult any source of pertinent information, includingexperts.49 The court may appoint an expert on itsown motion or on the motion of any party.50 Thecourt must make this information and its source partof the record in the action and afford each party areasonable opportunity to confront such

information.51

Other than the rules of privilege,exclusionary rules of evidence do not apply to thisinquiry. The court, however, may decline to take judicial notice if the probative value of the matter issubstantially outweighed by the probability that is

46 RULESOF CT. 323(b).


22/112




Update


admission will necessitate undue consumption of time47 RULESOF CT. 323(b). The local rules of the Los Angeles and

San Francisco superior courts require that the party requesting judicial notice file a written request with the clerk of thedepartment where the matter is to be heard at least five daysbefore the hearing. LOS ANGELES SUPER. CT. R. 9.16(b); S.F. SUPER.CT. R. 8.9(B). The Los Angeles Superior Court will not hearargument on the demurrer unless the department where thematter is to be heard receives the file at least two court daysbefore the hearing. LOS ANGELES SUPER. CT. R. 9.16(b). Nothing inthe rules prohibits the demurring party from attaching to themoving papers copies of the matters to be judicially noticed, as

protection against misplacement of the court file. LOS ANGELESSUPER. CT. R. 9.16(c). The Los Angeles Superior Court treats eachdistrict as a different court. LOS ANGELES SUPER. CT. R. 9.16(c).The San Francisco Superior Court requires that the certifiedcopies be a ttached to the moving papers. S.F. SUPER. CT. R.8.9(C)(2).

If the matter to be judicially noticed is in a case file in adifferent court, the party seeking judicial notice must eithersupply the law and motion judge with certified copies of thematter or subpoena the other courts file.

48 EVID. CODE 455(a) .49 EVID. CODE 454(a)(1) .50 EVID. CODE 460.

51 EVID. CODE 455(b) .


23/112




Update


or create substantial danger of undue prejudice orconfusion.52

[B] Grounds

Code of Civil Procedure section 430.1053 providesthat a defendant may object by demurrer to the

complaint on any of the following grounds: The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of thecause of action alleged in the pleading (i.e., thecourt lacks subject matter jurisdiction).

The pla inti ff does not have the legal capacity tosue.

There is another action pending between thesame parties on the same cause of action.

There is a defect or misjoinder of parties.

The pleading does not state facts sufficient toconstitute a cause of action.

The pleading is uncertain, ambiguous, orunintelligible.

52 EVID. CODE 352, 454(a)(2).53 See generally ROBERT I. WEIL & IRA A. BROWN, JR., CALIFORNIA

PRACTICE GUIDE: CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL 7:30 (1999).

Chapter: Challengingthe Courts Jurisdiction

Parties: Capacity to Sueand Be Sued
http://civpr96f.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://ch01-03_.pdf/http://ch02-03_.pdf/http://ch02-03_.pdf/http://ch01-01_.pdf/http://ch01-01_.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/http://ch01-01_.pdf/http://ch01-01_.pdf/http://ch02-03_.pdf/http://ch02-03_.pdf/http://ch01-03_.pdf/


24/112




Update


In an action founded upon a contract, one cannotdetermine from the pleading whether the contractis written, oral, or implied by conduct.

The plaintiff failed to fi le his attorneys certificatein an action against a licensed architect,engineer, or land surveyor.

[1] General Demurrers

Demurrers made on the ground of the plaintiffsfailure to state a cause of action or the courts lackof subject matter jurisdiction are known as generaldemurrers. In contrast to demurrers on other

grounds (i.e.,special demurrers), one does not waivean objection on grounds raised by a general demurrerby failing to raise the objection by demurrer oranswer.54 One may not circumvent the rule againstbelated special demurrers by arguing that essentialfacts mispleaded in the complaint are not pleaded at

54 CODE CIV. PROC. 430.80(a). See generally ROBERT I. WEIL & IRAA. BROWN, JR., CALIFORNIA PRACTICE GUIDE: CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL 7:33:34, :37 (1999); 5 B.E. WITKIN, CALIFORNIA PROCEDURE,

Pleading 905, 911913 (4th ed. 1997).
http://civpr96f.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://ch01-03_.pdf/http://ch02-06_.pdf/http://ch02-06_.pdf/http://ch02-06_.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/http://ch02-06_.pdf/http://ch01-03_.pdf/


25/112




Update


all and that the complaint therefore fails to state acause of action.55

[a] Failure to State FactsSufficient to Constitute aCause of Action

A general demurrer on the ground that a complaintfails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause ofaction56 assumes the truth of the plaintiffs assertionsof material facts,57 no matter how improbable58 ordifficult to prove.59 The court, however, is not boundto assume the truth of contentions, deductions, or

55 Drullinger v. Erskine, 71 Cal. App. 2d 492, 497, 163 P.2d 48,51 (1945).

56 CODE CIV. PROC. 430.10(e).57 Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal. 3d 584, 591, 487 P.2d 1241, 1245,

96 Cal. Rptr. 601, 605 (1971). See generally ROBERT I. WEIL & IRAA. BROWN, JR., CALIFORNIA PRACTICE GUIDE: CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL 7:39:45.1 (1999); 5 B.E. WITKIN, CALIFORNIA PROCEDURE, Pleading 910 (4th ed. 1997).

58 Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co., 123 Cal. App.3d 593, 604, 176 Cal. Rptr. 824, 829 (1981).

59 Committee on Childrens Television, Inc. v. General FoodsCorp., 35 Cal. 3d 197, 214, 673 P.2d 660, 670, 197 Cal. Rptr.

783, 793 (1983).


26/112




Update


conclusions of fact or law.60

A demurrer asks whetherthe plaintiff would be entitled to a legal remedy if thealleged facts were true. A complaint is not subject toa demurrer on this ground if, on the facts alleged, theplaintiff would be entitled to some remedy, even if theplaintiff misconceives the legal theory supplying his

legal remedy.61 A complaint is sufficient and will beupheld if it states a cause of action on any theory. 62

Example: P purchases an automobile insurancepolicy through D, who executes a reductionof uninsured motorist coverage without

authorization from P. After an accident, Phires a lawyer, who persuades the insurer

60 Moore v. Regents of the Univ., 51 Cal. 3d 120, 125, 793 P.2d479, 480, 271 Cal. Rptr. 146, 147 (1990), cert. denied, 499U.S. 936 (1991).

61 Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., 19 Cal. 4th 26,3839, 19 Cal. 4th 253B, 960 P.2d 513, 519, 77 Cal. Rptr.2d709, 715 (1998); Barquis v. Merchants Collection Assn, 7 Cal.3d 94, 103, 496 P.2d 817, 823, 101 Cal. Rptr. 745, 751 (1972).

62 Diamond Multimedia Sys., Inc. v. Superior Court, 19

Cal. 4th 1036, 968 P.2d 539, 80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 828, cert.

denied,522 U.S. 1048 (1999).


27/112




Update


to pay P the full uninsured motorist benefitsthat P would have received if D had notexecuted the reduction of coverage. P suesD for fraud. D demurs to the complaint onthe ground that P s complaint does notstate facts sufficient to constitute a cause

of action for fraud. The court sustains thedemurrer.

The court erred. Though the complaintdid not state a cause of action for fraud, itdid state a cause of action against D for

professional malpractice.

63

Nor is the complaint subject to a general demurrer ifthe plaintiff seeks an inappropriate remedy,64 for ademurrer does not lie against the defective part of aclaim as long as the pleaded facts show the plaintiffsentitlement to some relief.65 The fact that a complaint

63 Saunders v. Cariss, 224 Cal. App. 3d 905, 90809, 274 Cal.Rptr. 186, 18889 (1990).

64 Grieves v. Superior Court, 157 Cal. App. 3d 159, 163, 203Cal. Rptr. 556, 558 (1984). The appropriate vehicle forchallenging the plaintiffs choice of remedy is a motion to strike.

Id. at 164, 203 Cal. Rptr. at 558.


28/112




Update


is ambiguous or uncertain, or that the essential factsare merely implied, or that the complaint allegesconclusions of law, does not lead to the conclusionthat the complaint does not state facts sufficient toconstitute a cause of action and are not subject to ageneral demurrer. Rather, the defendant can attack

these defects only by means of a special demurrer.66If upon a consideration of all the facts stated itappears that the plaintiff is entitled to any reliefagainst the defendant, the complaint will survive ageneral demurrer, although the complaint may notstate the facts clearly, or may intermingle therelevant facts with other facts irrelevant to the causeof action shown, or may demand relief to which theplaintiff is not entitled under the facts alleged.67

If the complaint in a class action case fails toallege facts sufficient to establish the elements

65 PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court, 33 Cal. App. 4th 1680, 1682,40 Cal. Rptr. 2d 169, 171 (1995).

66 Johnson v. Mead, 191 Cal. App. 3d 156, 160, 236 Cal. Rptr.277, 280 (1987).

67 Schnall v. Hertz Corp., 78 Cal. App. 4th 1144, 1152, 93 Cal.

Rptr. 2d 439, 445 (2000).


29/112




Update


necessary for maintenance of a class action, thecourt properly disposes of the matter on demurrer.68A demurrer is not an appropriate weapon, however,to attack a claim for {declaratory relief} inasmuch asthe plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of its rights,even if adverse.69

[ i] Effect of Allegations[I] Resolution of

Inconsistencies

The plaintiffs allegations do not bind the court toconclude that the plaintiff has stated a valid claim if

the complaint contains factual allegations inconsistentwith attached documents or contrary to facts that are judicially noticed. Thus, a pleading valid on its facemay nevertheless be subject to demurrer whenmatters judicially noticed by the court render thecomplaint meritless.70 Nor is the court bound by

68 Silva v. Block, 49 Cal. App. 4th 345, 349, 56 Cal. Rptr. 2d613, 614 (1996).

69 Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Zerin, 53 Cal. App. 4th 445, 460, 61

Cal. Rptr. 2d 707, 715 (1997).


30/112




Update


allegations inconsistent with documents attached tothe complaint.71

Example: P hires Payroll Company to process Pspayroll checks. Payroll Company divertsP s funds to its own use, and P sues Bank,

70 Bockrath v. Aldrich Chem. Co., 21 Cal. 4th 71, ??, 980 P.2d398, 406, 86 Cal. Rptr. 2d 846, 854 (1999); Cantu v. ResolutionTrust Corp., 4 Cal. App. 4th 857, 877, 6 Cal. Rptr. 2d 151, 162(1992) (allegations in complaint filed in earlier case); Owens v.Kings Supermarket, 198 Cal. App. 3d 379, 384, 243 Cal. Rptr.627, 630 (1988) (prior complaint); Del E. Webb Corp. v.

Structural Materials Co., 123 Cal. App. 3d 593, 604, 176 Cal.Rptr. 824, 82930 (1981) (plaintiffs affidavits and depositiontestimony); Stencel Aero Engg Corp. v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.App. 3d 978, 987 n.6, 128 Cal. Rptr. 691, 696 n.6 (1976)(plaintiffs responses to requests for admissions). But seeGarcia v. Sterling, 176 Cal. App. 3d 17, 22, 221 Cal. Rptr. 349,352 (1985) (judicial notice may not be taken of the truth of theplaintiffs deposition testimony). See generally ROBERT I. WEIL &IRA A. BROWN, JR., CALIFORNIA PRACTICE GUIDE: CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORETRIAL 7:46:48.19 (1999).

71 Software Design & Application, Ltd. v. Hoefer & Arnett, Inc.,49 Cal. App. 4th 472, 484, 56 Cal. Rptr. 2d 756, 764 (1996);Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co., 123 Cal. App. 3d

593, 604, 176 Cal. Rptr. 824, 82930 (1981).


31/112




Update


alleging that he was a customer of Bank.The signature card attached to P scomplaint discloses, however, that PayrollCompany was the account holder. The trialcourt sustains Bank s demurrer.

The court ruled correctly. Facts appearing

in exhibits attached to the complaint will beaccepted as true and, if contrary to theallegations in the pleading, will be givenprecedence.72

The plaintiff cannot avoid the consequences of a

fatal inconsistency by amending the complaint to omitthe facts that rendered the complaint defective or bypleading facts inconsistent with the allegations ofprior pleadings.73 In order to avoid the effect ofearlier inconsistent pleadings, of which the courtwould otherwise take judicial notice, the plaintiff must

explain the inconsistency.74

72 Dodd v. Citizens Bank, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1624, 162627, 272Cal. Rptr. 623, 624 (1990).

73 Knoell v. Petrovich, 76 Cal. App. 4th 164, ??, 90 Cal. Rptr.2d 162, 164 (1999); Continental Ins. Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co.,

55 Cal. App. 4th 637, 646, 64 Cal. Rptr. 2d 116, 12021 (1997).


32/112




Update


The plaintiff, however, is entitled to pleadinconsistent causes of action.

[I I] Interpretation ofAmbiguous Instruments

If the plaintiff bases his cause of action on anambiguous contract, he must allege his construction

of the agreement.75 So long as the pleading does notplace a clearly erroneous construction upon theprovisions of the contract, in passing upon thesufficiency of the complaint the court must accept ascorrect the plaintiffs allegations as to the meaning of

the agreement.

76

74 Software Design & Application, Ltd. v. Hoefer & Arnett, Inc.,49 Cal. App. 4th 472, 484, 56 Cal. Rptr. 2d 756, 764 (1996);Owens v. Kings Supermarket, 198 Cal. App. 3d 379, 384, 243Cal. Rptr. 627, 630 (1988).

75 Hayter Trucking, Inc. v. Shell W. E & P, Inc., 18 Cal. App. 4th1, 18, 22 Cal. Rptr. 2d 229, 240 (1993). See generally ROBERT I.WEIL & IRA A. BROWN, JR., CALIFORNIA PRACTICE GUIDE: CIVIL PROCEDUREBEFORE TRIAL 7:48.25.27 (1999).

76 Marina Tenants Assn v. Deauville Marina Dev. Co., 181 Cal.

App. 3d 122, 128, 226 Cal. Rptr. 321, 324 (1986).

Drafting the Complaint:Pleading in theAlternative
http://civpr96f.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://ch01-05_.pdf/http://ch01-05_.pdf/http://ch01-05_.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/http://ch01-05_.pdf/http://ch01-05_.pdf/


33/112




Update


Example: P sues D for breach of a vacuum truckservice agreement containing a terminationprovision. P alleges the existence of atrade custom and usage in the petroleumindustry that such agreements areterminable only for cause. The court

sustains P s demurrer.The court erred. If the interpretation of a

written instrument turns upon the credibil ityof extrinsic evidence, the plaintiff need onlyallege the meaning he ascribes to theagreement.77

[i i] Federal Preemption

A demurrer is an appropriate vehicle to secure adismissal of a state law action based on federal lawpreemption. Federal law preemption is based on theSupremacy Clause of the Constitution and may be

demonstrated by the explicit language of a federalstatute, by an actual conflict between state and

77 Hayter Trucking, Inc. v. Shell W. E & P, Inc., 18 Cal. App. 4th

1, 18, 22 Cal. Rptr. 2d 229, 240 (1993).


34/112




Update


federal law, or by a federal law exclusively occupyingthe legislative field.78

[iii] Omission of an Element ofthe Plaintiffs Cause ofAction

If a complaint fails to allege a crucial element of

the plaintiffs cause of action but the defendant filesan improper speaking demurrer (i.e., a demurreraccompanied by supporting evidence), the demurrersupplements the complaint, and if the defendantsevidence supplies the missing pieces of the plaintiffs

complaint, the demurrer should be overruled.

79

78 Smiley v. Citibank, 11 Cal. 4th 138, 900 P.2d 690, 44 Cal.Rptr. 2d 441 (1995)

Ball v. GTE Mobilnet, 81 Cal. App. 4th 529, 535, 81 Cal. App.4th 1204D, 96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 801, 80405 (2000).

79 Mohlmann v. City of Burbank, 179 Cal. App. 3d 1037, 1041n.2, 225 Cal. Rptr. 109, 110 n.2 (1986). See generally ROBERT I.WEIL & IRA A. BROWN, JR., CALIFORNIA PRACTICE GUIDE: CIVIL PROCEDURE

BEFORE TRIAL 7:61:62 (1999).


35/112




Update


[iv] Defense Disclosed on Faceof Complaint

One may demur to a complaint if an affirmativedefense clearly appears on the face of the complaint,but the court may not sustain a demurrer based onan affirmative defense if it appears that from the face

of the complaint the defense may bar the action butdoes not necessarily do so.80

[ I] Statute of Limitat ions

If the complaint discloses that the statute oflimitations bars the plaintiffs cause of action, the

complaint is subject to a general demurrer.81

To savehis action, the plaintiff must plead around the

80 CrossTalk Productions, Inc. v. Jacobson, 65 Cal. App. 4th631, 635, 76 Cal. Rptr. 2d 615, 617 (1998).

81

Iverson, Yoakum, Papiano & Hatch v. Berwald, 76 Cal. App.4th 990, ??, 90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 665, 669 (1999); Cochran v.Cochran, 56 Cal. App. 4th 1115, 1120, 66 Cal. Rptr. 2d 337,340 (1997); Barton v. New United Motor Mfg., Inc., 43 Cal. App.4th 1200, 1204, 51 Cal. Rptr. 2d 328, 330 (1996). Seegenerally ROBERT I. WEIL & IRA A. BROWN, JR., CALIFORNIA PRACTICE GUIDE:CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL 7:49:57 (1999); 5 B.E. WITKIN,

CALIFORNIA PROCEDURE, Pleading 915 (4th ed. 1997).


36/112




Update


l imitations defense by stating facts negating thedefense.82 A plaintiff whose complaint shows on itsface that his claim would be barred without thebenefit of the discovery rule must specifically pleadfacts to show (1) the time and manner of discoveryand (2) the inability to have made earlier discovery

despite reasonable diligence. The burden is on theplaintiff to show diligence, and conclusory allegationswill not withstand demurrer.83 Though the defendantneed not plead more than that the cause of action isbarred by the statute of limitations,84 a demurrer isdeficient if it identifies specific statutes of limitationsbut fails to identify the correct one.85

A demurrer based on the statute of limitations willnot lie when all that one can say is that the action

82 Union Carbide Corp. v. Superior Court, 36 Cal. 3d 15, 25,

679 P.2d 14, 20, 201 Cal. Rptr. 580, 586 (1984).83 McKelvey v. Boeing N. Am., Inc., 74 Cal. App. 4th 151, ??,

86 Cal. Rptr. 2d 645, 651 (1999).84 Bainbridge v. Stoner, 16 Cal. 2d 423, 431, 106 P.2d 423, 428

(1940).85 Zakaessian v. Zakaessian, 70 Cal. App. 2d 721, 725, 161

P.2d 677, 680 (1945).


37/112




Update


may be barred. In order to raise the bar of thestatute of limitations by demurrer, the statutespreclusive effect must clearly and affirmativelyappear on the face of the complaint.86 An allegationthat the defendant committed a certain act on orabout a certain date is not an allegation that the

defendant committed the act on that certain date andthus is not vulnerable to a general demurrer if thatcertain date is outside the limitations period.87 If thedefendant cannot invoke the statute by means of ageneral demurrer, he must allege the statute ofl imitations as an affirmative defense, pin the plaintiffdown as to the relevant dates through discovery, andfile a {motion for summary judgment} based on thestatute of limitations. The same is true if the plaintiffalleges unlawful acts and damages both within andoutside the limitations period: the complaint is not

86 Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz &McCort, 91 Cal. App. 4th 875, 881, 110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 877, 881(2001); Roman v. County of Los Angeles, 85 Cal. App. 4th 316,102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 13 (2000).

87 Childs v. State, 144 Cal. App. 3d 155, 16162, 192 Cal.

Rptr. 526, 529 (1983).
http://civpr96f.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://ch02-06_.pdf/http://ch02-06_.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/http://ch02-06_.pdf/


38/112




Update


subject to a general demurrer, though the statute oflimitations may bar the plaintiffs recovery ofcompensation relating to damages that occurred toolong before the filing of the complaint.88

Example: P sues D for antitrust violations, allegingdamages occurring (a) more than three

years, (b) less than three years and morethan one year, and (c) less than one yearbefore the filing of the complaint. The courtsustains D s demurrer based on theapplicable one-year and three-year statutesof limitations.

The court erred. Ps harm suffered withinthree years of the filing of the complaintwas within the limitations period and wasreimbursable through compensatorydamages. Harm suffered within one year

was subject to an additional trebledamages penalty. The statute of limitationsbarred the recovery of damages for harm

88 G.H.I.I. v. MTS, Inc., 147 Cal. App. 3d 256, 279, 195 Cal.

Rptr. 211, 226 (1983).
http://civpr96f.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://ch01-05_.pdf/http://ch01-05_.pdf/http://ch01-05_.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/http://ch01-05_.pdf/


39/112




Update


suffered more than three years before thefiling of the complaint. By alleging someharm occurring within one year of the filingof the complaint, the complaint stated acause of action and was not subject to ageneral demurrer, even though some of the

harm alleged occurred outside thelimitations period.89

If the application of the statute of l imitations turnson whether the contract sued upon was oral orwritten, the defendant has the means to pin theplaintiff down before the discovery stage. Code ofCivil Procedure section 430.10(g) provides that, in anaction founded upon a contract, a defendant maydemur if one cannot ascertain from the complaintwhether the contract was written, oral, or implied byconduct. If the plaintiff is forced to allege that the

contract was oral, the defendant may demur to theamended pleading if its allegation of an oral contractdiscloses the applicability of the statute of limitations.

89 G.H.I.I. v. MTS, Inc., 147 Cal. App. 3d 256, 279, 195 Cal.

Rptr. 211, 226 (1983).

Special Demurrers:Written or Oral Contract


40/112




Update


[II ] LachesOne may raise the defense of laches by a generaldemurrer where the facts showing laches appear onthe face of the complaint.90 Laches appears on theface of the complaint if the complaint showsunreasonable delay on the plaintiffs part resulting in

prejudice to the defendant.91[III] Unclean Hands

Because the doctrine of unclean hands dependsheavily on the facts of each case, it is a uniquelypoor candidate to support a demurrer. Nevertheless,

there have been unusual situations in which thecomplaints allegation have established a defense ofunclean hands.92

90 Stafford v. Ballinger, 199 Cal. App. 2d 289, 296, 18 Cal.Rptr. 568, 572 (1962). See generally 5 B.E. WITKIN, CALIFORNIAPROCEDURE, Pleading 916 (4th ed. 1997).

91 Barndt v. County of Los Angeles, 211 Cal. App. 3d 397, 403,259 Cal. Rptr. 372, 376 (1989).

92 CrossTalk Prods., Inc. v. Jacobson, 65 Cal. App. 4th 631,641, 76 Cal. Rptr. 2d 615, 62021 (1998); Blain v. Doctors Co.,

222 Cal. App. 3d 1048, 1064, 272 Cal. Rptr. 250, 259 (1990).


41/112




Update


[IV] Contract DefensesIf the complaint discloses that the plaintiff isseeking to enforce an oral contract that the statute offrauds requires to be in writing, the complaint issubject to a general demurrer.93 As with the statuteof limitations defense, the defendant may file a

special demurrer if the plaintiff neglects to allegewhether the contract was written or oral.94 If theplaintiff is forced to allege that the contract was oral,the defendant may demur to the amended pleading ifits allegation of an oral contract discloses theapplicability of the statute of frauds.

If the complaint discloses that the plaintiff isseeking to enforce an illegal contract, the complaintis subject to a general demurrer.95

93 Harper v. Goldschmidt, 156 Cal. 245, 25253, 104 P.2d 451,454 (1909). See generally ROBERT I. WEIL & IRA A. BROWN, JR.,CALIFORNIA PRACTICE GUIDE: CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL 7:58:59.1(1999); 5 B.E. WITKIN, CALIFORNIA PROCEDURE, Pleading 919 (4th ed.1997).

94 CODE CIV. PROC. 430.10(g).95 Beck v. American Health Group Intl, Inc., 211 Cal. App. 3d

1555, 1564, 260 Cal. Rptr. 237, 243 (1989).

Special Demurrers:Written or Oral Contract

Affirmative Defenses:Illegality
http://civpr96f.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://ch02-06_.pdf/http://ch02-06_.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/http://ch02-06_.pdf/http://ch02-06_.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/


42/112




Update


If the complaint discloses that the partiesagreement was not sufficiently definite to constitute acontract, the complaint is subject to a generaldemurrer.96 (One raises an objection that thecomplaint is not sufficiently definite by means of aspecial demurrer on the grounds of uncertainty.)

[V] Res JudicataThe defense of res judicata is generally raised in

an answer to the complaint or by {motion forsummary judgment}. However, if all of the factsnecessary to establish that an action is barred on res

judicata grounds appear on the face of the complaint,the complaint is subject to demurrer.97

[VI] Plaintiff Not the RealParty in Interest

When the complaint states a cause of action insomeone but not in the plaintiff, a general demurrer

96 Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation Dist., 70 Cal. 2d 240, 244n.2, 449 P.2d 462, 465 n.2, 74 Cal. Rptr. 398, 401 n.2 (1969).

97 Brosterhous v. State Bar, 12 Cal. 4th 315, 324, 906 P.2d1242, 1247, 48 Cal. Rptr. 2d 87, 92 (1995). See generally 5

B.E. WITKIN, CALIFORNIA PROCEDURE, Pleading 918 (4th ed. 1997).

Special Demurrers:

Uncertainty

Parties: The Real Partyin Interest Rule
http://civpr96f.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://ch02-06_.pdf/http://ch01-01_.pdf/http://ch01-01_.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/http://ch01-01_.pdf/http://ch01-01_.pdf/http://ch02-06_.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/


43/112




Update


for failure to state a cause of action will besustained.98 Put another way, when the defendantcontends that the plaintiff lacks standing to sue, hecan challenge the complaint by means of a generaldemurrer for failure to state a cause of action in thisplaintiff.99 One must distinguish between such an

objection and an objection that the plaintiff, thoughhe has pled a cause of action, does not have thecapacity to sue. One raises the latter objection byspecial demurrer.

Example: PCorp. sues D, contending that D snegligent work on a condominium projectcaused PCorp. to incur repair costs. The

98 Oakland Municipal Improvement League v. City of Oakland,23 Cal. App. 3d 165, 170, 100 Cal. Rptr. 29, 32 (1972). But seeCloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 67 Cal. App. 4th 995, 1004,79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 544, 550 (1998) (suit by a plaintiff who is notthe real party in interest is more accurately described as adefect . . . of parties). See generally 5 B.E. WITKIN, CALIFORNIAPROCEDURE, Pleading 917 (4th ed. 1997).

99 Charpentier v. Los Angeles Rams Football Co., 75 Cal. App.4th 301, 89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 115, 119 (1999); County of Fresno v.Shelton, 66 Cal. App. 4th 996, 1009, 78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 272, 279

(1998).


Special Demurrers:Plaintiffs Lack ofCapacity to Sue
http://civpr96f.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://ch01-01_.pdf/http://ch01-01_.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/http://ch01-01_.pdf/http://ch01-01_.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/


44/112




Update


complaint discloses, however, that P Corp.was hired to maintain the condominium anddid not own it. D demurs on the ground ofPCorp. s lack of capacity. The courtsustains D s general demurrer on theground that P Corp. has no legal capacity

to sue.The court erred. PCorp. s allegation that

it is a corporation established its capacityto sue. The complaint was defectivebecause the cause of action allegedbelonged to the condominium owners andnot to the corporation they hired tomaintain the condominium. The complaintwas subject to a general demurrer forfailing to state facts sufficient to constitutea cause of action in PCorp.100

100 Friendly Village Community Assn, Inc., No. IV v. Silva & HillConstr. Co., 31 Cal. App. 3d 220, 224, 107 Cal. Rptr. 123, 125

(1973).
http://civpr96f.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/


45/112




Update


[VII]PrivilegeA general demurrer lies when the complaintdiscloses that a privilege bars the plaintiffs tortclaim.101

[b] Lack of Subject MatterJurisdiction

A general demurrer will also lie when the complaintdiscloses that the court lacks subject matterjurisdiction over the controversy, even though thecomplaint states facts sufficient to constitute a causeof action for which some other court may grant

relief.102

A demurrer for lack of subject matter jurisdiction resembles a demurrer for failure to statea cause of action in that the defendant forfeitsneither objection if he fails to raise it by demurrer orin his answer.103 For this reason, demurrers on these

101 Easton v. Sutter Coast Hosp., 80 Cal. App. 4th 485, 490, 95Cal. Rptr. 2d 316, 319 (2000); Green v. Cortez, 151 Cal. App.3d 1068, 107273, 199 Cal. Rptr. 221, 22324 (1984). Seegenerally 5 B.E. WITKIN, CALIFORNIA PROCEDURE, Pleading 920 (4thed. 1997).102 CODE CIV. PROC. 430.10(a). See generally 5 B.E. WITKIN,


Ch ll i h C l i S f C
http://civpr96f.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://ch01-03_.pdf/http://ch01-03_.pdf/http://ch02-06_.pdf/http://ch02-06_.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/http://ch02-06_.pdf/http://ch01-03_.pdf/http://ch01-03_.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/


46/112




Update


grounds are classified together as generaldemurrers.104

[2] Special Demurrers

One may object to the complaint on other groundsby means of a special demurrer or in onesanswer.105 If a defendant fails to raise such anobjection by means of a special demurrer or in hisanswer, he forfeits the objection.106 The Code of CivilProcedure does not permit special demurrers inlimited civil cases.107

103 CODE CIV. PROC. 430.80(a).104 Certified Grocers, Ltd. v. San Gabriel Valley Bank, 150 Cal.App. 3d 281, 285 n.1, 197 Cal.Rptr. 710, 713 n.1 (1983).105 CODE CIV. PROC. 430.80(a); See generally ROBERT I. WEIL & IRAA. BROWN, JR., CALIFORNIA PRACTICE GUIDE: CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL

7:2.1, :3, :32, :38:38.1 (1999); 5 B.E. WITKIN, CALIFORNIAPROCEDURE, Pleading 906 (4th ed. 1997).106 CODE CIV. PROC. 430.80(a); Stockton Newspapers, Inc. v.Members of Redevelopment Agency, 171 Cal. App. 3d 95, 103,214 Cal. Rptr. 561, 565 (1985) (failure to raise uncertainty byspecial demurrer results in forfeiture of the objection).107

CODE CIV. PROC. 92(c) .

Ch ll i th C l i t S f C
http://civpr96f.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://ch02-06_.pdf/http://ch02-06_.pdf/http://ch02-06_.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/http://ch02-06_.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/


47/112




Update


[a] Uncerta intyThe defendant may demur to a complaint if thecomplaint is uncertain, ambiguous, orunintelligible.108 A demurrer for uncertainty is strictlyconstrued, even where a complaint is in somerespects uncertain, because ambiguities can be

clarified through modern discovery procedures.109The court will sustain a demurrer for uncertainty onlyif the complaint fails to include sufficient factualallegations to apprise the defendant of the issues hemust meet.110 The court will overrule a demurrer foruncertainty if the uncertainty concerns factspresumptively within the defendants knowledge.111

108 CODE CIV. PROC. 430.10(f). See generally ROBERT I. WEIL & IRAA. BROWN, JR., CALIFORNIA PRACTICE GUIDE: CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL 7:84:89.1 (1999); 5 B.E. WITKIN, CALIFORNIA PROCEDURE, Pleading

927929 (4th ed. 1997).109 Khoury v. Malys, Inc., 14 Cal. App. 4th 612,616, 17 Cal.Rptr. 2d 708, 710 (1993). See LOS ANGELES SUPER. CT. R. 9.18(c).110 Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp., 185 Cal. App. 3d 135,139 n.2, 229 Cal. Rptr. 605, 606 n.2 (1986).111 Khoury v. Malys, Inc., 14 Cal. App. 4th 612, 616, 17 Cal.

Rptr. 2d 708, 710 (1993).

Ch ll i th C l i t S f C t t
http://civpr96f.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://ch05-01_.pdf/http://ch05-01_.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/http://ch05-01_.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/


48/112




Update


The demurrer must distinctly specify the groundsupon which the defendant objects to the complaint.The failure to specify the uncertain aspects of acomplaint will defeat a demurrer based on thegrounds of uncertainty.112

[b] Written or Oral Contract

In an action founded upon a contract, thedefendant may demur to the complaint if one cannotascertain from the complaint whether the contract iswritten, oral, or implied by conduct.113 This groundfor special demurrer enables the defendant to flush

out an admission of facts showing the applicability ofthe statute of frauds or of the statute of limitations.

112 CODE CIV. PROC. 430.60; Fenton v. Groveland CommunityServs. Dist., 135 Cal. App. 3d 797, 809, 185 Cal. Rptr. 758, 765(1982). See also LOS ANGELES SUPER. CT. R. 9.18(c) (requiringspecification by page and line number of the portion of thecomplaint claimed to be uncertain); ORANGE SUPER. CT. R. 516(C)(same). See generally ROBERT I. WEIL & IRA A. BROWN, JR., CALIFORNIAPRACTICE GUIDE: CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL 7:90:94 (1999); 5B.E. WITKIN, CALIFORNIA PROCEDURE, Pleading 930 (4th ed. 1997).113 CODE CIV. PROC. 430.10(g). See generally ROBERT I. WEIL & IRAA. BROWN, JR., CALIFORNIA PRACTICE GUIDE: CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL

7:90:94 (1999).

Contract Defenses

Ch ll i th C l i t S f C t t
http://civpr96f.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/


49/112




Update


The plaintiff, however, can avoid this pitfall bypleading a common count without attempting to pleada separate cause of action for breach of the contracton which the common count is based.114

[c] Attorneys Certificate

Code of Civil Procedure section 411.35 provides

that before serving on any defendant a complaint forprofessional negligence against an architect,professional engineer, or land surveyor,115 anattorney must file a consultation certificate.Section 411.36 imposes an identical regimen in

occupational negligence actions against contractorsby common interest development associations undersection 383. In either kind of case, the defendantmay object by special demurrer if the plaintiffsattorney failed to file the required certificate.116

Civil Code section 1354 requires an attempt at

alternative dispute resolution before initiating

114 Moya v. Northrup, 10 Cal. App. 3d 276, 281, 88 Cal. Rptr.783, 786 (1970).115 Section 411.30 formerly imposed a consultation requirementin medical malpractice actions. This version of the statute,

however, was repealed by its own terms as of January 1, 1989.

Actions RequiringPresuit Consultation:Actions AgainstArchitects, ProfessionalEngineers, and LandSurveyors

Actions RequiringPresuit Consultation:Actions by CommonInterest DevelopmentAssociations AgainstContractors

Actions RequiringPresuit Consultation:Actions to EnforceCommon InterestDevelopment Covenantsand Restrictions

Challenging the Complaint S mmar of Contents
http://civpr96f.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://ch01-02_.pdf/http://ch01-02_.pdf/http://ch01-02_.pdf/http://ch01-02_.pdf/http://ch01-02_.pdf/http://ch01-02_.pdf/http://ch01-02_.pdf/http://ch01-02_.pdf/http://ch01-02_.pdf/http://ch01-02_.pdf/http://ch01-02_.pdf/http://ch01-02_.pdf/http://ch01-02_.pdf/http://ch01-02_.pdf/http://ch01-02_.pdf/http://ch01-02_.pdf/http://ch01-02_.pdf/http://ch01-02_.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/http://ch01-02_.pdf/http://ch01-02_.pdf/http://ch01-02_.pdf/http://ch01-02_.pdf/http://ch01-02_.pdf/http://ch01-02_.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/


50/112




Update


l itigation to enforce the covenants and restrictionsrelating to a common interest development.117 Thefailure to file a certificate is grounds for a demurreror a motion to strike unless the plaintiff certifies inwriting that one of the other parties to the disputerefused alternative dispute resolution before the filing

of the complaint, that preliminary or temporaryinjunctive relief is necessary, or that alternativedispute resolution is not required because thelimitation period for bringing the action would haverun within the 120-day period following the filing ofthe action, or the court finds that dismissal of the

action would result in substantial prejudice to one ofthe parties.118

116 CODE CIV. PROC. 430.10(h), ( i) . See generally ROBERT I. WEIL &IRA A. BROWN, JR., CALIFORNIA PRACTICE GUIDE: CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORETRIAL 7:9597.5 (1999).117 A common interest development is a community apartmentproject, a condominium project, a planned development, or astock cooperative. CIV. CODE 1351(c) .118

CIV. CODE 1354(c) .

Challenging the Complaint Summary of Contents


51/112




Update


[d] Pleas in Abatement

At common law the defendant, before demurring oranswering, could make preliminary objections to theform of the proceeding. These objections, known aspleas in abatement, are now included among thegrounds upon which one may assert a special

demurrer. There is no basis in the Code of CivilProcedure for treating the pleas in abatementdifferently from other objections raised by specialdemurrer. Case law, however, preserves thedistinction. One sometimes reads that one must makea plea in abatement at the first opportunity, bydemurrer if the defect appears on the fact of thecomplaint.119 It is doubtful, however, whetherclassifying an objection as a plea in abatement hasany modern significance beyond requiring a strong justification for allowing amendment of the answer to

assert a plea in abatement.120

119 Ostrowski v. Miller, 226 Cal. App. 2d 79, 86, 37 Cal. Rptr.790, 793 (1964).120 Stewart v. San Fernando Refining Co., 22 Cal. App. 2d 661,66364, 71 P.2d 1118, 1119 (1937). See generally 5 B.E. WITKIN,


http://civpr96f.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://ch02-06_.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/http://ch02-06_.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/


52/112




Update


[i] Plaintiff s Lack of Capacityto Sue

The defendant may demur to a complaint if itappears from the complaint that the plaintiff does nothave the legal capacity to sue.121 One must take carenot to confuse lack of capacity with failure to sue in

the name of the real party in interest.122 An objectionon the latter ground is, in substance, an objectionthat the complaint does not state facts sufficient toconstitute a cause of action in this plaintiff and israised by means of a general demurrer (or in onesanswer if the insufficiency does not appear on theface of the complaint or in matters of which the courtmay take judicial notice).

121 CODE CIV. PROC. 430.10(b). See generally ROBERT I. WEIL & IRAA. BROWN, JR., CALIFORNIA PRACTICE GUIDE: CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL 7:70:73 (1999); 5 B.E. WITKIN, CALIFORNIA PROCEDURE, Pleading 923, 10591061 (4th ed. 1997).122 American Alternative Energy Partners II, 1985 v. Windridge,Inc., 42 Cal. App. 4th 551, 559, 49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 686, 69091

(1996).


Demurrers: Plaintiff Notthe Real Party in

Interest

http://civpr96f.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://ch01-01_.pdf/http://ch01-01_.pdf/http://ch02-06_.pdf/http://ch01-01_.pdf/http://ch01-01_.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/http://ch01-01_.pdf/http://ch01-01_.pdf/http://ch02-06_.pdf/http://ch01-01_.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/


53/112




Update


[ii] Another Action Pending

The defendant may demur to a complaint if thecomplaint discloses that there is another actionpending between the same parties on the samecause of action.123 Otherwise, the defendant mustraise the objection in his answer. Abatement is

required only where both actions are pending inCalifornia courts. When a federal court and a statecourt each acquire jurisdiction over a dispute, neitheracquires exclusive jurisdiction, and each mayproceed at its own pace until one or the otherachieves a final judgment, which then becomes res judicata as to the other court.124 When the otheraction is pending in another state or in federal court,the determination whether to stay the later action isdiscretionary, not mandatory, and should be raised bymotion, not demurrer.125

123 CODE CIV. PROC. 430.10(c). See generally ROBERT I. WEIL & IRAA. BROWN, JR., CALIFORNIA PRACTICE GUIDE: CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL 7:74:77.3 (1999); 5 B.E. WITKIN, CALIFORNIA PROCEDURE, Pleading 924, 10641076 (4th ed. 1997).124 Fowler v. Ross, 142 Cal. App. 3d 472, 477, 191 Cal. Rptr.

183, 186 (1983).

Challenging thePlaintiffs Choice ofForum: Motions to Stay

or Dismiss forInconvenient Forum

http://civpr96f.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://ch02-06_.pdf/http://ch02-01_.pdf/http://ch02-04_.pdf/http://ch02-04_.pdf/http://ch02-04_.pdf/http://ch02-04_.pdf/http://ch02-04_.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/http://ch02-04_.pdf/http://ch02-04_.pdf/http://ch02-01_.pdf/http://ch02-06_.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/


54/112




Update


A second lawsuit is on the same cause of actionas the first lawsuit if a judgment in the first lawsuitwould constitute res judicata in the second lawsuit.The identity of two causes of action is determined bya comparison of the allegations showing the nature ofthe invasion of the plaintiffs primary right.126

Example: P sues Insurance Co. for bad faith,contending that Insurance Co. s failure tosettle Ps claim caused P extremeemotional distress. In a separate action, Psues Doctor, alleging physical injuries as aresult of side effects of drugs that Doctorprescribed for P s emotional distress. Psettles with Insurance Co. and takes anassignment of Insurance Co. s claim forequitable indemnity against Doctor. P suesDoctor on the assigned claim for equitable

125 Leadford v. Leadford, 6 Cal. App. 4th 571, 574, Cal. Rptr. 2d9, 12 (1992); Gregg v. Superior Court, 194 Cal. App. 3d 134,136, 239 Cal. Rptr. 380, 381 (1987) (pending action in federalcourt).126 Bush v. Superior Court, 10 Cal. App. 4th 1374, 1384, 13 Cal.

Rptr. 2d 382, 387 (1992).

http://civpr96f.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://ch01-05_.pdf/http://update__.pdf/http://civpr9sl.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/http://ch01-05_.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/http://civpr96f.pdf/


55/112




Update


indemnity. The court overrules Doctor sspecial demurrer made on the ground ofanother action pending.

The court ruled correctly. P s primaryright in his tort action was his right tofreedom from bodily harm caused by

negligence. Insurance Co. s primary rightin the equitable indemnity action was itsright to freedom from disproportionateliability for damages attributable to thenegligence of the concurrent tortfeasors.These were different primary rights. Thetort actions against Insurance Co. andDoctor were based upon different causesof action.127

When the defendant successfully demurs on theground that another action is pending upon the same

cause of action, the court enters an interlocutory judgment in favor of the defendant to the effect thatno trial of other issues shall be had until the final

127 Bush v. Superior Court, 10 Cal. App. 4th 1374, 1384, 13 Cal.

Rptr. 2d 382, 387 (1992).


8/3/2019 Challenging the Complaint -

Documents

Challenging the Complaint - Legal Study Guide