Demurrer to Complaint In California Case Law

For purposes of ruling on a demurrer the allegations of the complaint must be treated as having been admitted. (Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal. 4th 26 77 Cal. Rptr. 2d 709, 960 P.2d 513, 38; Call v. Kezirian (1982) 135 Cal. App. 3d 189, 195 185 Cal. Rptr. 103; Custodio v. Bauer (1967) 251 Cal. App. 2d 303 59 Cal. Rptr. 463, 27 A.L.R.3d 884.) "It is axiomatic that if there is a reasonable possibility that a defect in the complaint can be cured by amendment or that the pleading liberally construed can state a cause of action, a demurrer should not be sustained without leave to amend." ( Minsky v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 113 113 Cal. Rptr. 102, 520 P.2d 726, 118.) However, while " 'a demurrer admits all material and issuable facts properly pleaded . . . it does not admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law alleged therein.' (Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal. 2d 695, 713 63 Cal. Rptr. 724, 433 P.2d 732.) 'In determining whether or not the complaint is sufficient . . . to constitute a cause of action, the rule is, that if upon a consideration of all the facts stated it appears that the plaintiff is entitled to any relief at the hands of the court against the defendants, the complaint will be held good, although the facts may not be clearly stated, or may be intermingled with a statement of other facts irrelevant to the cause of action shown, or although the plaintiff may demand relief to which he is not entitled under the facts alleged.' (Matteson v. Wagoner (1905) 147 Cal. 739, 742 82 P. 436.) In other words, 'plaintiff need only plead facts showing that he may be entitled to some relief.' (Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc. (1970) 2 Cal. 3d 493, 496 86 Cal. Rptr. 88, 468 P.2d 216.)" (Gruenberg v. Aetna Ins. Co. (1973) 9 Cal. 3d 566, 572 108 Cal. Rptr. 480, 510 P.2d 1032; accord, Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co., supra, 19 Cal. 4th at p. 38; Moore v. Regents of University of California (1990) 51 Cal. 3d 120, 125 271 Cal. Rptr. 146, 793 P.2d 479, 16 A.L.R.5th 903.) An appeal from a judgment entered after the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend presents anew the question whether " ' "it appears that the plaintiff is entitled to any relief at the hands of the court against the defendants," ' " which is "a pure question of law." (CAMSI IV v. Hunter Technology Corp. (1991) 230 Cal. App. 3d 1525, 1530 282 Cal. Rptr. 80, quoting Gruenberg v. Aetna Ins. Co., supra, 9 Cal. 3d at p. 572.) We construe the allegations of the complaint liberally " 'with a view to substantial justice between the parties.' "(9 Cal. 3d at p. 573, fn. 4, citing, inter alia, Code Civ. Proc., 452.)