Yenokian

DISCUSSION

The only issue before us is whether the trial court abused its discretion by sustaining defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend. “It is an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment. [Citation.] The burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate how the complaint can be amended to state a valid cause of action.

2 [Citation.]” (Chapman v. Skype Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 217, 226.) “[A] plaintiff need not request leave to amend in order to preserve on appeal the issue of whether the court abused its discretion in sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend. (Code Civ. Proc., § 472c).” (Palm Springs Tennis Club v. Rangel (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1, 7.) But the plaintiff still bears the burden of proof on appeal to show “there is a reasonable possibility the defect in the pleading can be cured by amendment.” (Ibid.) It is unclear how plaintiff would be able to amend his complaint as to sufficiently state a cause of action. The record makes clear that the process by which Quality was 1 named trustee and recorded the notice of default was lawful. Civil Code section 2934a…