What is a Motion for Failure to State A Claim?

A “motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted” is a procedural label used in federal court, not California court. The state-court equivalents are a demurrer, or a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Code of Civ. Proc., §§430.10, 438.

The function of a demurrer is to test the legal sufficiency of a pleading. Trs. Of Capital Wholesale Elec. Etc. Fund v. Shearson Lehman Bros. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 617, 621. Consequently, “[a] demurrer reaches only to the contents of the pleading and such matters as may be considered under the doctrine of judicial notice.” South Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 732. “It is not the ordinary function of a demurrer to test the truth of the plaintiff’s allegations or the accuracy with which he describes the defendant’s conduct.... [T]he facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be.” Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 949, 958.

“Judgment on the pleadings is akin to a demurrer and is properly granted only if the complaint does not state facts sufficient to state a cause of action against that defendant. The grounds for the motion must appear on the face of the complaint, and in any matters subject to judicial notice. The court accepts as true all material factual allegations, giving them a liberal construction, but it does not consider conclusions of fact or law, opinions, speculation, or allegations contrary to law or judicially noticed facts.” Shea Homes Limited Partnership v. County of Alameda (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1254.

It is an abuse of discretion for the court to deny leave to amend where there is any reasonable possibility that plaintiff can state a good cause of action. Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349. The burden is on the plaintiff to show in what manner he or she can amend the complaint, and how that amendment will change the legal effect of the pleading. Medina v. Safe-Guard Products (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 105, 112.

For more see Demurrer and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

Useful Rulings on Motion for Failure to State A Claim

Recent Rulings on Motion for Failure to State A Claim

ALVARO GALLEGOS, ET AL. VS LUCIANO GOMEZ, JR.

Defendants now demur to the first, third, fifth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, twelfth and thirteenth causes of action for failure to state a claim. Legal Standard A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action.¿ (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747 (Hahn).) ¿When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context.¿ (Taylor v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

PEGGY HILL VS UCLA, ET AL.

“[A] pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” (Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 [106, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251] (1976) [internal quotations omitted].)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

JUNG EUNG KIM VS KWANG SOON LEE

Defendant demurs to the claims on grounds of failure to state a claim and uncertainty. Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to state a claim for assault.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

MARINA HABA VS VICINO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL.

Vicino claims Haba raises the following “affirmative defenses” – none of which are actually affirmative defenses: (1) Failure to State a Cause of Action; (2) Claim-splitting; (3) Offset; (4) Remote or Speculative Damages; (5) Unjust Enrichment; (6) Legal Fault of Others; (7) Intervening/Superseding Acts of Third Parties; (8) Good Faith Actions; (9) Justification – No Malice, Fraud, or Oppression; (10) Failure to State a Claim for Punitive or Exemplary Damages; and (11) Unintentional [Conduct]/Lack of Knowledge

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GARDEN CITY, INC. V. ERIC SWALLOW, ET AL.

A dismissal for failure to state a claim is ordinarily treated as sufficient to afford preclusive effect. (Franceschi v. Franchise Tax Bd. (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 247, 257–259 [courts apply California law on res judicata while giving full faith and credit to federal judgments].) Even so, Cross-Defendants do not analyze and establish the preclusive effect in light of the particular allegations, primary rights, and parties here.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

MELITA STEWARD VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC, ET AL.

Failure to State a Claim: Fraud by Omission (6th COA) The elements of fraud are: “‘(a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or ‘scienter’); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage.’ [Citations]” (Charnay v. Cobert (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 170, 184.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

ORNETHA BUTLER VS MANUEL D. TEJEDA TRUCKING INC

For this reason, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s demurrer with respect to the following affirmative defenses: (1) Failure to State a Claim, (4) Lack of Causation, (8) Damages Uncertain, (9) No Causation, (10) Pre-Existing Injuries, (13) Exercise of Reasonable Care, (14) Alleged Injury or Damage Caused by Others, (15) No Injury or Damage, (17) Failure to Mitigate Loss, (18) No Duty or Special Relationship, (22) Beyond Defendant’s Control, and (29) Statute of Limitations.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

VELASCO VS. E-TEC

The Demurrer to all causes of action for failure to state a claim against Aceituno is OVERRULED. The SAC alleges Defendant Aceituno is an alter ego of corporate Defendants. (SAC ¶¶ 6, 9.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2020

DUAL DIAGNOSIS TREATMENT CENTER VS. HEALTH NET, INC., ET AL

Based on the foregoing, Sovereign’s Motion to Seal Documents Filed in Support of Sovereign’s Opposition to Health Net’s Motion for Summary Adjudication of their Affirmative Defense of Failure to State a Claim with Respect to Plaintiffs’ Breach of Contract and Bad Faith Causes of Action ts They Pertain to Oregon And Arizona Health Insurance Policies is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RANULFO SANTARRIAGA VS MIRNA ALCANTARA

In addition, “a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” (Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 [106, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251] (1976) [internal quotations omitted].)

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

LAURA MEDINA, ET AL. VS 99 CENTS ONLY STORES, LLC

Defendant demurs to the second cause of action alleged by Plaintiff Sepulveda for failure to state a claim. A demurrer reaches defects that appear on the face of the complaint. The court considers the allegations and matters that are subject to judicial notice. All facts are accepted as true. Saunders v. Superior Court (1994) 27 Cal. App. 4th 832, 838. A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations.

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2020

THE GLOBE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION V. THE GLOBE AT 2ND AND SANTA CLARA L.P., ET AL.

Failure to State a Claim: Fifth Cause of Action for Breach of First Party 2 Indemnity 3 The fifth cause of action has been newly added to the TAC; it was not alleged in the 4 SAC.

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2020

CELESTE MARIANO VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Failure to State a Claim: Fraudulent Inducement – Concealment (4th COA) The elements of fraud are: “‘(a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or ‘scienter’); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage.’ [Citations]” (Charnay v. Cobert (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 170, 184.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

KAREEN LOPEZ, ET AL. VS SHAHNAZ GABAYAN, ET AL.

Affirmative Defenses: 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 These affirmative defenses are for: (1) Failure to State a Cause of Action, (2), Uncertainty, (3) Failure to State a Claim for Punitive Damages, (6) Bar to Non-Economic Damages, (7) Lack of Duty, (17) Premises not Unreasonable, (18) No Proximate Cause, (19) No warranties, (21) Lack of Control by Defendant, (22) Unforeseeable, (23) Damages were Unavoidable, (24) No Steps to take to avoid, and (25) Acts of God.

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SAMUEL SALEMAN, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, EMANUEL SOMECH VS ROSARIO GONZALEZ

The Das court did not rule that the addition of a further conclusory allegation of actual notice would cure the failure to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, and only noted that the Das plaintiff failed to support its allegation that her father's bank loan was "suspicious". In this matter, Plaintiff implicitly concedes that no case law exists supporting his argument that additional allegations of actual notice regarding wrongdoing sufficiently state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2020

TRAN VS. FARMERS GROUP INC

Alternatively, the defendants sought dismissal under: (1) FRCP 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction; (2) FRCP 12(b)(3) for improper venue; and FRCP 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Id. As an alternative to dismissal, the defendants asked that the case be transferred to the Southern District of California so that it could be tried against Defendant. Id.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

TRAN VS. FARMERS GROUP INC

Alternatively, the defendants sought dismissal under: (1) FRCP 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction; (2) FRCP 12(b)(3) for improper venue; and FRCP 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Id. As an alternative to dismissal, the defendants asked that the case be transferred to the Southern District of California so that it could be tried against Defendant. Id.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

BARBARA DARWISH, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

Failure to State a Claim (CCP § 430.10(e)) Finally, Defendant argues that the complaint fails to facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. “Any person . . . who desires a declaration of his or her rights or duties with respect to another . . . may, in cases of actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the respective parties, bring an original action . . . for a declaration of his or her rights and duties . . . .” (CCP § 1060.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2020

DOE VS. WEAMER

Failure to State a Claim, 2. Waiver, 3. Laches, 4. Unclean Hands, 5. Estoppel, 6. Offset, 7. Statute of Limitations, 8. Failure to Mitigate Damages, 9. Consent, 10. Contributory Negligence, 11. Comparative Fault, and 12. Indemnity/Contribution (erroneously listed as a second “Eleventh Affirmative Defense”).

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2020

INDUSTRIAL JANITORIAL SERVICE, ET AL. V. APPLE INC., ET AL.

Failure to state a claim. As a third argument, defendant Apple demurs to the second cause of action by arguing that plaintiff IJS has not stated facts sufficient to support a cause of action for violation of Civil Code section 51.5. Defendant Apple acknowledges plaintiffs’ allegations about various statements made by defendant Apple employees regarding her gender, but contend these are insufficient as a matter of law. Defendant Apple relies exclusively upon Precise Aerospace Manufacturing, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

CAROL LYNNE GERVASI, ET AL. VS CANYON TRAILS, ET AL.

Failure to State a Claim Defendants argue that elder abuse claims must be pled with particularity and that Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently plead specific allegations of egregious and outrageous conduct constituting elder abuse. Rather, it is argued, Plaintiffs have merely pled generalities and conclusions. Defendants cite Covenant Care, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KATIE O CONNELL MARSH VS GAUMONT TELEVISION USA LLC

On January 17, 2020, Defendants filed their answer to the SAC asserting the following affirmative defenses: (1) failure to state a claim; (2) breach of confidentiality; (3) statute of limitations; (4) unclean hands; (5) estoppel; (6) waiver; (7) failure to mitigate damages; (8) no damages; (9) good faith; (10) consent, authorization or ratification; (11) laches; (12) acquiescence; (13) breach of contract; (14) no proximate cause/intervening and superseding cause; (15) excuse; (16) bad faith; (17) equitable estoppel

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

ROYAL HOME HEALTHCARE AGENCY VS NOHO HOME HEALTH CARE ET AL.

Cal. 2010) 730 F.Supp.2d 1174, in which the district court granted a motion to dismiss a cause of action for violation of the CFAA for failure to state a claim, where the allegations were that defendants had breached a license agreement and engaged violated the Act by accessing and giving a competitor of plaintiff’s access to drives on its server which contained trade secrets.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

WILLIAM CAMPANA VS CONSUELO SALDANA ET AL

Fourth Affirmative Defense (Failure To Mitigate Damages); Fifth Affirmative Defense (Waiver); Sixth Affirmative Defense (Estoppel); Seventh Affirmative Defense (Release and Discharge); Eighth Affirmative Defense (Statute of Frauds); Ninth Affirmative Defense (Unclean Hands); Tenth Affirmative Defense (Laches); Eleventh Cause of Action (Failure to State a Claim for Award of Attorney’s Fees); Twelfth Cause of Action (Consent); Thirteenth Affirmative Defense (Violations of State and Local Laws); Fourteenth Affirmative

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

OTTO L. HASELHOFF, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE OTTO AND LARA HASELHOFF FAMILY TRUST DATED JULY 27, 2006, AND AS ASSIGNEE OF GREG BRILES INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARTNER AND/OR TRUSTEE VS CITY OF SANTA MONICA, A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY

Defendant instead argues statute of limitations and failure to state a claim which may be raised in a demurrer but are not appropriately asserted in a motion to strike. The Court notes defendant listed its challenge to the Brown Act Claim in the notice of demurrer but did not argue in the memorandum in support of its demurrer. Defendant cannot circumvent the procedural requirements applicable to the demurrer by arguing the merits of the demurrer in the motion to strike.

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 25     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.