Demurrer to Cross-Complaint – OVERRULED Cross-Defendants Salisbury Group, Inc.’s and Lisa Gerard Salisbury’s demurrer to Cross-Complainant Paul Edalat’s Cross-Complaint is overruled. Cross-Defendants are ordered to file and serve their Answer to the Cross-Complaint within ten days.
A demurrer presents an issue of law regarding the sufficiency of the allegations set forth in the complaint. (Lambert v. Carneghi (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1120, 1126.) The challenge is limited to the “four corners” of the pleading (which includes exhibits attached and incorporated therein) and matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable under Evidence Code §§ 451 or 452. Although California courts take a liberal view of inartfully drawn complaints, it remains essential that a complaint set forth the actionable facts relied upon with sufficient precision to inform the defendant what plaintiff is complaining about and what remedies are being sought. (Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399, 413
Hearing Date
September 21, 2020
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Demurrer to Cross-Complaint – OVERRULED Cross-Defendants Salisbury Group, Inc.’s and Lisa Gerard Salisbury’s demurrer to Cross-Complainant Paul Edalat’s Cross-Complaint is overruled. Cross-Defendants are ordered to file and serve their Answer to the Cross-Complaint within ten days.
A demurrer presents an issue of law regarding the sufficiency of the allegations set forth in the complaint. (Lambert v. Carneghi (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1120, 1126.) The challenge is limited to the “four corners” of the pleading (which includes exhibits attached and incorporated therein) and matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable under Evidence Code §§ 451 or 452. Although California courts take a liberal view of inartfully drawn complaints, it remains essential that a complaint set forth the actionable facts relied upon with sufficient precision to inform the defendant what plaintiff is complaining about and what remedies are being sought. (Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399, 413