Manifest Valley Wellness v. County of Los Angeles CA2/2

facts from [plaintiff’s operative pleading], the allegations of which are deemed true for the limited purpose of determining whether [it] has stated a viable cause of action. [Citation.]” (Stevenson v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 880, 885.) Facts appearing in exhibits attached to the complaint are also accepted as true and given precedence over inconsistent allegations in the complaint. (Barnett v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 500, 505; Holland v. Morse Diesel Internat., Inc. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1447.)

2 desperately in need of treatment.” According to plaintiff, the County “approved, awarded, and entered into a Substance Abuse Prevention and Control (‘SAPC’) contract, with [plaintiff] whereunder [plaintiff] would provide services to Medi-Cal approved recipients.” In fact, various County personnel sent e- mails to plaintiff congratulating it on its SAPC contract and mentioning the onboarding process. Furthermore, in response to correspondence from plaintiff, the County sent two e-mails to plaintiff asking for proof that plaintiff had made its first $125,000 deposit. It is unclear whether plaintiff made that deposit and/or provided proof of that…