Xia

DISCUSSION

I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“‘In reviewing an order sustaining a demurrer, we examine the operative complaint de novo to determine whether it alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action under any legal theory.’ [Citation.] ‘“‘“We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.”’”’” (Mathews v. Becerra (2019) 8 Cal.5th 756, 768.) When a demurrer is sustained without leave to amend, “we decide whether there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment: if it can be, the trial court has abused its discretion and we reverse; if not, there has been no abuse of discretion and we

3 affirm. [Citations.] The burden of proving such reasonable possibility is squarely on the plaintiff.” (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; see Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1081.)

II.

THE DEMURRER WAS PROPERLY SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

BECAUSE EQUITABLE TOLLING IS INAPPLICABLE TO THIS CASE

Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred by sustaining the demurrer because they pleaded facts in the complaint showing they timely presented their…