Gonsalves

DISCUSSION

In his brief, Gonsalves attempts to argue why each cause of action in his amended complaint is viable, but he fails to address the basis on which the court first sustained the demurrer without leave to amend as to the 12 new causes of action he added in his amended complaint, namely, that the addition of those new causes of action was beyond the scope of the leave to amend the court had granted him in sustaining the demurrer to his original complaint. As we find a valid basis for the court’s ruling, we have no occasion to address Gonsalves’s arguments on the substance of each of his 12 new causes of action. The rule is as stated in Harris: “Following an order sustaining a demurrer . . . with leave to amend, the plaintiff may amend his or her complaint only as authorized by the court’s order. [Citation.] The plaintiff may not amend the complaint to add a new cause of action without having obtained permission to do so, unless the new cause of action is within the scope of the order granting leave to amend.” (Harris v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, supra, 185 Cal.App.4th at p. 1023.) Here, Gonsalves makes no attempt to show that his 12 new causes of action were within the scope…