Form and Format Requirements

The California Rules of Court provide for the form and format requirements of complaints in Title 2, Division 2. Further information regarding topics, such as service, are provided in Title 3.

Format

As a preliminary, the court expects the parties to comply with the California Rules of Court regarding the format of the motion papers filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.100, et seq.). The law requires that each cause of action be separately labeled, numbered, specify its nature, and specify which parties it is between. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.112; see also Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2017) ¶ 6:104 (citations omitted)). “Each separately stated cause of action, count, or defense must specifically state:

1. Its number (e.g., “first cause of action”);
2. Its nature (e.g., “for fraud”);
3. The party asserting it if more than one party is represented on the pleading (e.g., “by plaintiff Jones”); and
4. The party or parties to whom it is directed (e.g., “against defendant Smith”).”

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.112).

Effect of Local Rules

Per California Rules of Court, Rule 2.100, “No trial court, or any division or branch of a trial court, may enact or enforce any local rule concerning the form or format of papers.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.100, subd. (a)). While this rule permits the clerk to refuse to file a paper that does not conform to the California Rules of Court, it precludes the clerk from refusing to file a paper that does not conform to a local rule. (Carlson v. State of California Department of Fish & Game (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1272). California Rules of Court, rule 3.220 specifically states, “If a party that is required to provide a cover sheet under this rule or a similar local rule fails to do so or provides a defective or incomplete cover sheet at the time the party’s first paper is submitted for filing, the clerk of the court must file the paper.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220, subd. (c)).

Content Requirements

Fact-Pleading Requirement

“A complaint must contain “[a] statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.” (§ 425.10, subd. (a)(1)).

This fact-pleading requirement obligates the plaintiff to allege ultimate facts that “as a whole apprise[ ] the adversary of the factual basis of the claim.” (Estate of Archer (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 238, 245 (internal citations omitted); see also Lim v. The.TV Corp. Internat. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 684, 689–690). When a complaint complies with the fact-pleading requirement of section 425.10, subdivision (a)(1), “[t]he existence of a legal right in an abstract form is never alleged by the plaintiff; but, instead thereof, the facts from which that right arises are set forth, and the right itself is inferred therefrom. The cause of action, as it appears in the complaint when properly pleaded, will therefore always be the facts from which the plaintiff's primary right and the defendant's corresponding primary duty have arisen, together with the facts which constitute the defendant's delict or act of wrong.” (Lodi v. Lodi (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 628, 631).

Demurrer: Failure to Set Forth Essential Facts

A plaintiff is required to set forth the essential facts constituting his or her cause of action in ordinary and concise language. (Code of Civil Procedure §425.10; Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation District (1969) 70 Cal.2d 240, 245). Where the complaint fails to allege the essential elements of the claim, it is deficient as a matter of law and a demurrer will be sustained. (Gilbert v. State of California (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 234, 240-241). A demurrer will also lie if the complaint is so uncertain or unintelligible that the defendant cannot tell what he or she is supposed to respond to. (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corporation (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139).

Judicial Council Forms

The fact that a plaintiff used a Judicial Council form complaint does not make it immune from demurrer, because a Judicial Council form complaint, like any complaint, is subject to demurrer where the plaintiff fails to include specific allegations essential to the claim. (People ex rel. Department of Transportation v. Superior Court (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1480, 1484).

Irrelevant Matters

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 435, a party may move the Court to strike any irrelevant matter inserted into a complaint. (Code Civ. Proc. § 436, subd. (a)). The phrase “irrelevant matter” is defined to include, “a demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint . . ..” (Code Civ. Proc. § 431.10, subd. (c) and (b)(3)). In considering a motion to strike, the Court construes the pleadings “liberally . . . with a view to substantial justice.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 452).

Transmission of Complaint

California Rules of Court, rule 2.304, subdivision (d) provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “If the document transmitted to the court by fax machine is not filed with the court because of (1) an error in the transmission of the document to the court that was unknown to the sending party or (2) a failure to process the document after it has been received by the court, the sending party may move the court for an order filing the document nunc pro tunc.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.304(d)). Such a motion must be accompanied by the transmission record of the fax and a proof of transmission stated under penalty of perjury.

Presumptions

Allegations set forth in a complaint are considered in context and are presumed to be true. (Clauson v. Super. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255). In ruling on a demurrer, a court will accept all material allegations in the Complaint as true. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318). However, a court may not consider contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.4th 634, 638).

Relation-Back Doctrine

The requirement that the complaint allege ultimate facts forming the basis for the plaintiff's cause of action is central to the relation-back doctrine and the determination whether an amended complaint should be deemed filed as of the date of the original pleading. (Bartalo v. Superior Court (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 526, 533 (explaining essential role of fact-pleading requirement in application of relation-back doctrine)).

An amended complaint relates back to a timely filed original complaint, and thus avoids the bar of the statute of limitations, only if it rests on the same general set of facts and refers to the same “offending instrumentalities,” accident and injuries as the original complaint. (Barrington v. A.H. Robins Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 146, 151; Austin v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 596, 600 (“where an amendment is sought after the statute of limitations has run, the amended complaint will be deemed filed as of the date of the original complaint provided recovery is sought in both pleadings on the same general set of facts”)). The Second District then noted that the relation-back doctrine analysis requires a comparison of the original and amended complaints: “The relation-back doctrine, therefore, requires courts to compare the factual allegations in the original and amended complaints. (Davaloo v. State Farm Ins. Co. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 409, 416).

Defects and the Relation-back Doctrine

Just as a plaintiff who changes the essential facts upon which recovery is sought is not entitled to the benefits of the relation-back doctrine, so too a plaintiff who files a complaint containing no operative facts at all cannot subsequently amend the pleading to allege facts and a theory of recovery for the first time and claim the amended complaint should be deemed filed as of the date of the original, wholly defective complaint: Going from nothing to something is as much at odds with the rationale for allowing an amended pleading to relate back to the filing of the original documents as changing from one set of facts to a different set. (See Austin v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 596, 601–602 & fn. 2; Lamont v. Wolfe (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 375, 379, 381).

Well-Pleaded Complaint Rules

California's Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule

“The ‘well-pleaded allegations' of a complaint refer to ‘ “ ‘all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.’ ”'” (Kim v. Westmore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 281 (internal citation omitted)).

A well-pleaded complaint “set[s] forth the ultimate facts constituting the cause of action, not the evidence by which plaintiff proposes to prove those facts.” (Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 211–212 (fn. Omitted); see also Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550). “The complaint delimits the legal theories a plaintiff may pursue and the nature of the evidence which is admissible. ‘The court cannot allow a plaintiff to prove different claims or different damages at a default hearing than those pled in the complaint.’” (Electronic Funds Solutions, LLC v. Murphy (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1182 (internal citation omitted)).

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, it is error to enter a default on a complaint that fails to state a cause of action against the defaulting defendant. (Ferraro v. Camarlinghi (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 509, 539). The Third District Court of Appeal has held: “Where a complaint contains allegations destructive of a cause of action the defect cannot be cured by their omission without explanation in a subsequent pleading. For the purposes of a demurrer to the amended pleading an unexplained suppression of the original destructive allegation will not, in the words of Lady MacBeth, wash out the ‘damned spot.”” (Blain v. Doctor’s Co. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1048, 1058 (internal citation omitted)).

Federal Well-pleaded Complaint Rule

Pursuant to 28 USC §1338(a), “no State court shall have jurisdiction over any claim for relief arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents.

As explained by the U.S. Supreme Court in Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp. (1988) 486 U.S. 800, 808–809, this exclusivity covers “those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal patent law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law, in that patent law is a necessary element of one of the well-pleaded claims.”