10 Cited authorities

Blank v. Kirwan
39 Cal.3d 311 (Cal. 1985) Cited 3,071 times
Holding that the standard for a failure to state a claim is whether "the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action"
Christensen v. Superior Court
54 Cal.3d 868 (Cal. 1991) Cited 700 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendants owed duty to close family members for whose benefit funeral services were intended to avoid mishandling decedent's remains
Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp.
4 Cal.App.4th 857 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) Cited 518 times
Holding that "intentional infliction of emotional distress is an injury to the person"
Holland v. Morse Diesel International Inc.
86 Cal.App.4th 1443 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) Cited 111 times
In Holland, the court made the following statement: "If the second amended complaint contradicts or omits facts pleaded in [the plaintiff]'s first two complaints, we will take judicial notice of the earlier complaints and disregard inconsistent allegations, absent an explanation for the inconsistency.
Associated Vendors, Inc. v. Oakland Meat Co.
210 Cal.App.2d 825 (Cal. Ct. App. 1962) Cited 315 times
Holding "it is not sufficient to merely show that a creditor will remain unsatisfied if the corporate veil is not pierced, and thus set up such an unhappy circumstance as proof of an 'inequitable result'"
California Casualty Gen. Ins. v. Superior Court
173 Cal.App.3d 274 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) Cited 38 times
Docket No. E002108. October 11, 1985. COUNSEL Bruggeman, Smith Peckham and Stephen Miller for Petitioners. No appearance for Respondent. Miller, Madden Theios, Olen G. Miller and John J. Madden, Jr., for Real Party in Interest. OPINION KAUFMAN, J. We issued an alternative writ of mandate to review an order of the San Bernardino Superior Court denying the motion of defendants below to amend their answer to the plaintiff's first amended complaint for "bad faith" to allege a fourth affirmative defense:
Perkins v. Superior Court
117 Cal.App.3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981) Cited 39 times
Noting that pleading the language of section 3294 "is not objectionable when sufficient facts are alleged to support the allegation"
Monge v. Superior Court
176 Cal.App.3d 503 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) Cited 31 times
Finding that conclusory language may adequately plead malice "when read in context with the facts alleged as to defendants' conduct"
Johnson v. Mead
191 Cal.App.3d 156 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987) Cited 10 times
In Johnson v. Mead (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 156, the court did state that "objections that a complaint is ambiguous or uncertain, or that essential facts appear only inferentially, or as conclusions of law, or by way of recitals, must be raised by special demurrer, and cannot be reached on general demurrer."
Gressley v. Williams
193 Cal.App.2d 636 (Cal. Ct. App. 1961) Cited 27 times
In Gressley v. Williams, supra, 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 14 Cal.Rptr. 496, the appellate court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that his full performance of an oral contract not to be performed within a year took the contract out of the statute of frauds.

Opposition To Demurrer To First Amended Complaint

10 Cited authorities

Holding that the standard for a failure to state a claim is whether "the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action"

Holding that defendants owed duty to close family members for whose benefit funeral services were intended to avoid mishandling decedent's remains

Holding that "intentional infliction of emotional distress is an injury to the person"

Holding "it is not sufficient to merely show that a creditor will remain unsatisfied if the corporate veil is not pierced, and thus set up such an unhappy circumstance as proof of an 'inequitable result'"

Noting that pleading the language of section 3294 "is not objectionable when sufficient facts are alleged to support the allegation"

Finding that conclusory language may adequately plead malice "when read in context with the facts alleged as to defendants' conduct"

In Gressley v. Williams, supra, 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 14 Cal.Rptr. 496, the appellate court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that his full performance of an oral contract not to be performed within a year took the contract out of the statute of frauds.