DEMURRER to COMPLAINT
Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Tuesday January 20, 2026, Line 10. Defendant's Demurrer is OVERRULED.
Defendant's demurrer is based on Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e). The issue under section 430.10(e) is, taking the facts properly pleaded and properly noticed as true, does the challenged cause of action necessarily fail to state a cause for relief. (See CCP section 430.10(e); Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) In assessing whether the complaint states a cause of action, the court accepts all properly pleaded material facts, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Minton v.
Dignity Health (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1155, 1161.) "[I]f, on consideration of all facts stated, it appears that plaintiff is entitled to any relief against defendant, the complaint will be held good, though facts may not be clearly stated, or may be intermingled with a statement of other facts irrelevant to cause of action shown, or though plaintiff may demand relief to which he is not entitled under facts alleged." (Augustine v. Trucco (1954) 124 Cal.App.2d 229, 236, quoting Matteson v. Wagoner (1905) 147 Cal. 739, 742.)
Defendant contends Plaintiff's CLRA claim is defective because plaintiff failed to comply with its 30-day notice requirement. (See Civil Code section 1782(a).) Defendant's contention, however, does not establish Plaintiff's claim is one on which no relief can be granted. The notice requirement applies only to "an action for damages." (Id.; see also Lunada Biomedical v. Nunez (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 459, 471.) Plaintiff clearly refers to injunctive relief (Compl., para 32) and seeks injunctive relief (id. at para 33). Thus, even if Plaintiff's apparent request for "a refund" is not supported by his allegations, it does not follow that his CLRA claim, which also seeks injunctive relief, necessarily fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court overrules the demurrer.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.
Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/JMQ) |