Rutenburg

DISCUSSION

Standard of Review “On appeal from a judgment based on an order sustaining a demurrer, we assume all the facts alleged in the complaint (or petition) are true. (Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 524, 528. . . .) We accept all properly pleaded material facts, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Evans v. City of Berkeley (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1, 6. . . .) We may also consider matters subject to judicial notice. (Ibid.) We determine de novo whether the complaint (or petition) alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action under any legal theory. (Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. of Supervisors (2010) 48 Cal.4th 32, 42. . . .) We read the complaint (or petition) as a whole and its parts in their context to give the pleading a reasonable interpretation. (Evans v. City of Berkeley, supra, at p. 6. . . .) [¶] When a trial court has sustained a demurrer 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 affirm.’…