Dorn

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff contends on appeal that the trial court erred in sustaining demurrers to the third and fourth counts of the first cause of action (for declaratory relief) and to the third cause of action (for an accounting). For reasons that follow, we conclude that there was no abuse of discretion.

I. Standard of Review

“A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of factual allegations in a complaint. (Title Ins. Co. v. Comerica Bank—California (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 800, 807.) In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint against a general demurrer, this court treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. This court also considers matters that may be judicially noticed. When a demurrer is sustained, this court determines whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) “. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “When a demurrer is sustained without leave to amend, this court decides whether a reasonable possibility exists…