Quiroga

facts showing Fidelity either assisted in or had knowledge of the other defendants’ alleged wrongful conduct. Quiroga contends the court erred because (1) such knowledge on Fidelity’s part was not required as a matter of law and (2) the court applied incorrect legal standards, including by relying on Fidelity’s assertion that a clear and convincing standard of proof applied,

as well as a code section—Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 15610.30, subdivision (a)(3) of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, § 15600 et seq. (the Elder Abuse Act or the Act)—that she did not plead as the basis for her claim. She contends that applying the proper legal standards, she stated a valid financial elder abuse claim against Fidelity. We disagree with these contentions and affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In keeping with settled review standards on a demurrer, we state the background facts from the well-pleaded allegations of Quiroga’s complaint, disregarding contentions, deductions, and conclusions of fact or law. (John’s

Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2 Grill, Inc. v. The Hartford Financial…