California Demurrer — Load-Bearing Authorities

Key authorities by position, derived from proposition-authority pairs extracted from Orange County and Santa Clara County tentative rulings. Authorities appearing in multiple rulings across multiple judges are marked.

All demurrers — general standard

Kerivan v. Title Ins. & Trust Co. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 225, 229 — Moving party

All demurrers — California pleading standard (not federal Twombly/Iqbal)

Thomas v. Regents of University of Cal. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 587, 605 — Opposing party

Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation Dist. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 240, 245 — Opposing party

Breach of contract — must allege type of contract

Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(g); Otworth v. Southern Pac. Transportation Co. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 452 — Moving party

Implied covenant — no duplicative claims

Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1395 — Moving party

Fraud — specificity requirement

Lazar v. Super. Ct. (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645 — Moving party [appears in multiple OC and SC rulings]

Fraud — causation

Nagy v. Nagy (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 1262, 1269 — Moving party

Concealment — relaxed specificity

Alfaro v. Community Housing Imp. System & Planning Ass'n. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1384 — Opposing party [appears in multiple OC and SC rulings]

Concealment — duty to disclose

Rattagan v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2024) 17 Cal.5th 1, 40 — Both sides [appears 3x in 12-ruling sample; fastest-compounding new authority in dataset]

Concealment — economic loss rule (dead play)

Rattagan v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2024) 17 Cal.5th 1, 38 — Opposing party

Fiduciary duty — derivative vs. direct

Schrage v. Schrage (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 126, 150 — Moving party

UCL — wrong vehicle

Venice Town Council, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1547, 1561 — Opposing party

Defamation — common interest privilege and malice

Brewer v. Second Baptist Church of Los Angeles (1948) 32 Cal.2d 791, 799 — Moving party

SOL — discovery rule

Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 808-809 — Both sides [appears in multiple OC and SC rulings]

SOL — factual dispute bars demurrer

Worthington v. Rusconi (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1488, 1497 — Opposing party

SOL — legal malpractice

Lee v. Hanley (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1225, 1236-1237 — Moving party

Reply-only arguments forfeited

Browne v. County of Tehama (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 704, 720 — Opposing party

Leave to amend beyond scope of order

Zakk v. Diesel (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 431, 456 — Moving party

These rules apply regardless of what claim is being demurred.

The sole question is whether the facts as pleaded state a valid cause of action — not whether plaintiff can prove the facts, not whether the facts are likely, not whether you have a good defense. (Kerivan v. Title Ins. & Trust Co. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 225, 229.)

California does not apply the federal Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard. California requires that the complaint state ultimate facts sufficient to give notice of the issues — not a factually detailed account of everything plaintiff can prove. (Thomas v. Regents of University of Cal. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 587, 605; Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation Dist. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 240, 245.) Federal district court opinions on pleading sufficiency are not binding and are often not persuasive. (People v. Avena (1996) 13 Cal.4th 394, 431.)

Less specificity is required when the facts are predominantly in the defendant's knowledge. (Redfearn v. Trader Joe's Co. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 989, 996.)

Evidentiary facts found in exhibits attached to the complaint are considered on demurrer and control over inconsistent allegations in the complaint body. (Frantz v. Blackwell (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 91, 94.)