Opinion ID: 2599701
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Plaintiffs May Amend Their Complaint to Seek Writ of Mandate

Text: In assessing whether plaintiffs should be allowed leave to amend, we determine de novo whether the complaint states facts sufficient to state a cause of action under any possible legal theory. ( Leonte v. ACS State & Local Solutions, Inc. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 521, 525, 19 Cal.Rptr.3d 879.) We are not limited to plaintiffs' theory of recovery or form of action pled in testing the sufficiency of the complaint. ( Barquis v. Merchants Collection Assn. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 94, 103, 101 Cal.Rptr. 745, 496 P.2d 817.) It is clear that plaintiffs' complaint states facts sufficient to state a claim for a writ of mandate. It is true that plaintiffs sought mandamus in their first amended complaint, but failed to seek it in their second amended complaint after the trial court granted defendants' demurrer. In general, plaintiffs who amend a complaint rather than appeal the trial court's order waive the right to appeal any error in sustaining the first demurrer. ( Aubry, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 966, fn. 2, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 92, 831 P.2d 317.) However, that rule does not apply if the trial court denied plaintiffs leave to include those causes of action in an amended complaint. ( Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 209, 197 Cal.Rptr. 783, 673 P.2d 660 ( Children's Television ).) We conclude this exception applies here. When the trial court sustained defendants' demurrer to the first amended complaint (including the request for mandamus) and granted plaintiffs leave to add new theories for recovery, it made clear that it believed plaintiffs could not state a cause of action for mandate. Considering plaintiffs' pleadings, the discussion at the hearing, and the trial court's order, it is clear that the trial court granted plaintiffs leave to add contractual and equitable claims, not to reassert mandamus. Accordingly, we conclude that plaintiffs' failure to seek writ relief in the second amended complaint or to appeal the trial court's dismissal of the first amended petition does not now preclude them from amending the complaint to seek mandamus. ( Children's Television, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 209, 197 Cal.Rptr. 783, 673 P.2d 660.)