What is the difference between a complaint that is insufficient to state a cause of action and the second amened complaint?

The second amened complaint wholly failed to state a cause of action. It dealt in legal conclusions and failed to state facts constituting grounds for relief. For example, it alleged that the judgments were obtained through 'extrinsic fraud' but averred to facts constituting such fraud. In that regard it did not differ essentially from this very plaintiff's complaint in a similar action which was found insufficient in Baldwin v. Daniels, 132 Cal.App.2d 560, 282 P.2d 522. We refer to the opinion written in that case for an apt and adequate exposition of the applicable principles of law.

[154 Cal.App.2d 155] There was no abuse of discretion in denying leave to amend. This is not a case of sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend a complaint that did state a cause of action as was the case in Eads v. Marks, 39 Cal.2d 807, 812-813, 249 P.2d 257. This complaint was insufficient.