Court Opinion

ID: 9745375
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:51:59.426929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:59.448196
License: Public Domain

*163VOGEL (Miriam A.), J.
By a petition for rehearing, plaintiffs contend that, notwithstanding our view of the current pleadings, we should have remanded all four cases to the trial court to give plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their complaints. We disagree.  Although it is an abuse of discretion to sustain demurrers without leave to amend when there is a “reasonable possibility” that the plaintiffs can amend their complaints to cure the defects, the burden is on plaintiffs to show how the complaints can be amended and how such amendments will change the legal effect of their pleadings. (Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1386, 1388 [272 Cal.Rptr. 387].) Notwithstanding that such a showing may be made for the first time on appeal (id. at p. 1386), plaintiffs did not do so in this case, (lc) Assuming that such a showing could be made for the first time in a petition for rehearing, plaintiffs have not done so with regard to any of these cases. Accordingly, they have failed to establish that there is a reasonable possibility that an amendment would change the legal effect of their pleadings.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
Spencer, P. J., and Masterson, J., concurred.
A petition for a rehearing was denied July 21, 1999, and on July 14, 1999, the opinion was modified to read as printed above. The petition of all appellants and real parties in interest for review by the Supreme Court was denied September 29, 1999.