What is the appellant's burden of proving its cause of action after a sustained demurrer has been sustained?

The fact that we examine the complaint de novo does not, however, "mean that [appellants] need only tender the complaint and hope we can discern a cause of action. It is [the appellant's] burden to show either that the demurrer was sustained erroneously or that the trial court's denial of leave to amend was an abuse of discretion. [Citations.]" (Keyes v. Bowen (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 647, 655.) The trial court's judgment is presumed to be correct, and the appellant "has the burden to prove otherwise by presenting legal authority on each point made and factual analysis, supported by appropriate citations to the material facts in the record; otherwise, the argument may be deemed forfeited. [Citations.]" (Ibid.) In the context of an appeal following a sustained demurrer, this means that the appellant must not only explain the legal basis for the cause of action but that he or she must also cite the particular facts alleged in the complaint which, if found to be true, would support the cause of action. "It is the appellant's responsibility to support claims of error with citation and authority; this court is not obligated to perform that function on the appellant's behalf. [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 656.)

Where, as here, the trial court sustains the demurrer without leave to amend, "we must decide whether there is a reasonable possibility [appellant] could cure the defect with an amendment. [Citation.] If we find that an amendment could cure the defect, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion and we reverse; if not, no abuse of discretion has occurred. [Citation.]" (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1081.) The appellant also bears the burden of proving an amendment would cure

Page 4

the defect. (Ibid.)

Page 5