Skip to main content

Court ruling on Demurrer in California

San Jose, CA |

I am a defendant in case. The plaintiff is in his second amended complaint.

Again I filed a demurrer. The court sustained my demurrer with leave to amend.

The court ruling was: "The Court reluctantly grants leave to amend as it is not yet convinced that Plaintiffs will be unable to sufficiently state a cause of action for negligence. The Court anticipates no further leave to amend will be granted."

It seems to me that the word "unable" should have been "able" and thus the court statement would mean that the court thinks that the plaintiff will not be able show a cause of action.

Was this a typo in the court ruling or is there no typo and the ruling means that the court thinks that the plaintiff can indeed show cause of action?

Attorney Answers 4


  1. It was not a typo. The court thinks the plaintiff will be unable to state a cause of action but is giving the plaintiff another chance -- hence the demurrer was sustained with leave to amend. Leave should be granted unless the court is convinced that plaintiff cannot state a cause of action.

    I am licensed in California only and my answers on Avvo assume California law. Answers provided by me are for general information only. They are not legal advice. Answers must not be relied upon. Legal advice must be based on the interplay between specific exact facts and the law. This forum does not allow for the discussion of that interplay. My answer to any specific question would likely be different if that interplay were explored during an attorney-client relationship. I provide legal advice during the course of an attorney-client relationship only. The exchange of information through this forum does not establish such a relationship. That relationship is established only by personal and direct consultation with me followed by the execution of a written attorney-client agreement signed by each of us. The communications on this website are not privileged or confidential and I assume no duty to anyone by my participation on Avvo or because I have answered or commented on a question. All legal proceedings involve deadlines and time limiting statutes. So that legal rights are not lost for failure to timely take appropriate action and because I do not provide legal advice in answer to any question, if you are an interested party you should promptly and personally consult with an attorney for legal advice. Also, see Avvo's terms and conditions of use, specifically item 9, incorporated by this reference


  2. Definitely not a typo. Otherwise, the court would already have sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. Here, the court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend, meaning the court is giving the plaintiff one final chance to state a viable cause of action.

    Frank W. Chen has been licensed to practice law in California since 1988. The information presented here is general in nature and is not intended, nor should be construed, as legal advice for a particular case. This Avvo.com posting does not create any attorney-client relationship with the author. For specific advice about your particular situation, please consult with your own attorney.


  3. Nope, not a typo.


  4. Court thinks it is possible the pltf can state a cause of action, and is giving another chance to do so. If pltf doesnt get it this time, judge not likely to give leave to amend again. No typo.

Lawsuits and disputes topics

Top tips from attorneys

What others are asking

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.

Ask a Question

- or -

Search for lawyers by reviews and ratings.

Find a Lawyer

Browse all legal topics