Demurrer by Defendant Garfield International Company, Inc. to Plaintiff Sotelo’s Second Amended Complaint
Defendant Garfield International’s demurrer to plaintiff Sotelo’s second amended complaint is SUSTAINED with 60 days leave to amend.
In Doney v. Tambouratgis (1979) 23 Cal.3d 91, the court explained that: “An exception to this general rule of pleading and proof by the defendant appears in the situation where the complaint affirmatively alleges facts indicating coverage by the act. Then, unless the complaint goes on to state additional facts which would negative the application of the act, no civil action will lie and the complaint is subject to a general demurrer. (Singleton v. Bonneson (1955) 131 Cal.App.2d 327, 331 [280 P.2d 481]; see also Coleman v. Silverberg Plumbing Co., supra, 263 Cal.App.2d 74, 79; Deauville v. Hall (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 535, 540, 544 [10 Cal.Rptr. 511]; see generally 2 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law, supra, p. 863.)” Doney, at 97.
In the present case, plainti
Hearing Date
July 01, 2017
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Demurrer by Defendant Garfield International Company, Inc. to Plaintiff Sotelo’s Second Amended Complaint
Defendant Garfield International’s demurrer to plaintiff Sotelo’s second amended complaint is SUSTAINED with 60 days leave to amend.
In Doney v. Tambouratgis (1979) 23 Cal.3d 91, the court explained that: “An exception to this general rule of pleading and proof by the defendant appears in the situation where the complaint affirmatively alleges facts indicating coverage by the act. Then, unless the complaint goes on to state additional facts which would negative the application of the act, no civil action will lie and the complaint is subject to a general demurrer. (Singleton v. Bonneson (1955) 131 Cal.App.2d 327, 331 [280 P.2d 481]; see also Coleman v. Silverberg Plumbing Co., supra, 263 Cal.App.2d 74, 79; Deauville v. Hall (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 535, 540, 544 [10 Cal.Rptr. 511]; see generally 2 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law, supra, p. 863.)” Doney, at 97.
In the present case, plainti