Motion: Demurrer to Complaint Moving Parties: Defendant Corina Macias Responding Party: None ________________________________________________________________________ DISCUSSION Meet and Confer Under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a), before filing a demurrer, the objecting party shall meet and confer with the opposing party for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached to resolve the objections to the pleading.

The parties should meet and confer at least five days before the responsive pleading is due. The meet and confer shall be in person, by telephone, or by video conference. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).)

In support of the demurrer, Counsel for Defendant attests that he attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff, however, Plaintiff hung up on Counsel. After, Counsel sent Plaintiff a letter in an attempt to further the meet and confer but Plaintiff did not respond. The Court finds that the moving party has complied with the meet and confer requirement.

Statement of the Law. A demurrer challenges defects that appear on the face of the pleading, which includes incorporated exhibits, or matters that are judicially noticeable, but nothing else. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318 (Blank); Frantz v. Blackwell (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 91, 94.)

When evaluating a demurrer, the court reasonably interprets the pleading by reading it as a whole and its parts in their context. (Blank, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318.) The material facts that are properly pled are assumed true for purposes of a demurrer, but contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law are not assumed true. (Ibid.)

Whether a plaintiff can prove the allegations or the difficulty in proving the allegations is of no concern. (Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 936.) The complaint is to be liberally construed. (Code Civ. Proc., §452

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Other rulings by Nicole Quintana Winter Judge Nicole Quintana Winter dossier Other Demurrer in SANBERNARDINO All SANBERNARDINO County rulings Other Property Ejectment / Breach of Contract cases

Related rulings

by semantic similarity

Source

Print-friendly view

A demurrer predicated on insufficient facts to constitute a cause of action (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e)) should be granted only when the facts alleged on the face of the complaint fail to state any valid claim entitled to the plaintiff. (New Livable California v. Association of Bay Area Governments (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 709, 714.)

If the complaint fails to state a cause of action, the court must grant the plaintiff leave to amend if there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment. (Blank, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318.) On the other hand, “if it appears from the complaint ... there is no reasonable possibility that an amendment could cure the complaint’s defect,” sustaining without leave to amend is permissible. (Heckendorn v. City of San Marino (1986) 42 Cal.3d 481, 486.)

A pleading also may be challenged on demurrer for uncertainty. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).) This challenge generally is sustained only where the complaint is unfairly vague or so ambiguous or unintelligible that the defendant cannot reasonably respond i.e., determine the issues to be admitted or denied. (Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616 Page | 6 (Khoury).)

“A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Ibid.)

Analysis. Pacific demurs as to each cause of action on the grounds they fail state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action.

First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract The elements for a breach of contract claim are: (1) the existence of a contract between the parties, (2) the plaintiff’s performance or excuse for non-performance, (3) the defendant’s breach; and (4) the resulting damage. (Richman v. Hartley (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1182, 1186; Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. New York Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1178.)

“A written contract may be pleaded either by its terms—set out verbatim in the complaint or a copy of the contract attached to the complaint and incorporated therein by reference—or by its legal effect. [Citation.] To plead a contract by its legal effect, plaintiff must ‘allege the substance of its relevant terms. This is more difficult, for it requires a careful analysis of the instrument, comprehensiveness in statement, and avoidance of legal conclusions.’ [Citation.]” (McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1489.)

“Facts alleging a breach, like all essential elements of a breach of contract cause of action, must be pleaded with specificity. [Citations.]” (Levy v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1, 5.)

Defendants contend that the Complaint fails to attach the contract or set forth its terms in the contract. On its face, the Court finds that the Complaint fails to state whether the contract is written, oral, or implied by conduct. The Complaint also does not attach a copy of the written contract nor does it set forth the contract’s terms verbatim in the pleading. Such deficiencies are enough to sustain a demurrer to a contract cause of action. (Clarence Matthew Otworth v Southern Pacific Transportation Company, (1985), 166 Cal.App.3d 452, 459.)

It is likely that Plaintiff may be able to cure these deficiencies, particularly given the allegations Complaint regarding the breach of contract claim. Therefore, the Court sustains the demurrer to the first cause of action with leave to amend.

Second Cause of Action for Ejectment Ejectment is the remedy for an owner of a property to recover possession against one who unlawfully occupies the property. (Paap v. Von Helmholt (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 823, 829.) It is a cause of action that allows for the awarding of possession of property to the party with rightful title and right of possession. (Ibid.)

The plaintiff must show (a) the entitlement to present possession, and (b) deprivation of the right of possession. (McCarthy v. Brown (1896) 113 Cal. 15, 18; Montgomery v. Santa Ana Westminster Railway Company (1894) 104 Cal. 186, 197.)

Here, the Complaint fails to state the basis for Plaintiff’s entitlement to presently possess the property at issue. In addition, the Complaint fails to state how Plaintiff has been deprived of the right of possession. Therefore, the Court sustains the demurrer to the second cause of action with leave to amend.

Third Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief The purpose of declaratory relief is to set controversies at rest before they lead to repudiation of obligations, invasion of rights or commission of wrongs. (Env’t Def. Project of Sierra Cnty. v. Cnty. of Sierra (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 877, 884 (Sierra Cnty.).)

To qualify for declaratory relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 1060, two essential elements are necessary: 1) a proper subject of declaratory relief and 2) an actual controversy involving justiciable questions relating to the rights or obligations of a party. (Lee v. Silveira (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 527, 546 (Lee).)

The “actual controversy” language encompasses a probable future controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the parties. (Lee, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at p. 546.)

“One cannot analyze requested declaratory relief without evaluating the nature of the rights and duties that plaintiff is asserting, which must follow some recognized or cognizable legal theories that are related to subjects and requests for relief that are properly before the court.” (D. Cummins Corp. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489 (D. Cummins).)

A claim for declaratory relief must provide specific facts, as opposed to conclusions of law, which show a controversy of concrete actuality. (Jessin v. Shasta County (1969) 274 Cal.App.2d 737, 743-744; Jenkins v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 497, 514, disapproved on other grounds by Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 919, 939.)

In the context of a demurrer, the court will evaluate whether the factual allegations of the complaint for declaratory relief reveal that an actual controversy exists between the parties. (D. Cummins, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 1489.)

Here, it is not yet clear that a controversy exists on the face of the complaint because the third cause of action is dependent on the pleading of the first two causes of actions and the complaint as a whole. Therefore, the Court sustains the demurrer to the third cause of action with leave to amend.

The Court rules as follows:

1. Sustains the demurrer in its entirety with leave to amend;

2. Orders Plaintiff to file the First Amended Complaint within 30 days of the Court’s final ruling; and

3. Orders Defendant, as the prevailing party, to give formal notice of the Court’s ruling.

Dated: April 26, 2026

____________________________ Judge Nicole Quintana Winter