Ellenberger

Ellenberger v. Espinosa

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 1246·30 Cal. App. 4th 943·36 Cal. Rptr. 2d 360·94 Daily Journal DAR 17327·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9389
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 18, 1994E011662California2,845 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hollenhorst, J.

Plaintiff, James Dennis Ellenberger, D.D.S., appeals from a judgment entered against him and in favor of defendant Jennie Espinosa, (hereinafter defendant) based on the trial court’s action of sustaining her demurrer to plaintiffs second amended complaint without leave to amend.

Procedural Background

On April 10, 1992, plaintiff filed his second amended complaint against defendant and several other parties, including the State of California. Five causes of action were alleged against defendant: (1) conspiracy to violate his civil rights ( 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ); (2) slander per se; (3) intentional interference with contractual relationships; (4) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; and (5) conspiracy. On May 14, 1992, defendant demurred to each of these causes of action. On June 26, 1992, plaintiff filed his opposition to the demurrer. The court reviewed defendant’s challenges, sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, and entered judgment in her favor. Plaintiff appeals from such judgment.

Standard of Review

Where a trial court sustains a demurrer without leave to amend, we review such action under the abuse of discretion standard. (Hendy v.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.