In the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles
State of California

Juan M. Luco,
Plaintiff

Vs.

Robert S. Baker,
Defendant

DEMURRER TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Now comes the defendant, R. S. Baker, and demurring to the second amended complaint of the plaintiff filed herein, for cause of demurrer alleges:

I. That the Court has no jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, or of the subject matter of this action.

II. That said second amended complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

III. That said second amended complaint does not, nor does any count, paragraph, or so-called cause of action therein, severally or separately, stated or alleged, state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

IV. That said second amended complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, in this; that the express trust sought to be enforced in this action, is contrary to public policy, forbidden by the laws of this state, and void; and that said express trust is especially contrary to and forbidden by Section 847 and by Subdivision 3 of Section 857 of the Civil Code of the State of California.

V. That the said second amended complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a, or any cause of action, in this; that the causes of action set forth therein, and each of them, is and are barred by the provisions of Sections 312 & 318 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

VI. That said second amended complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a, or any cause of action, in this; that the causes of action set forth therein, and each of them, is and are barred by the provisions of Sections 312 & 319 of the Code of Civil Procedures.

VII. That said second amended complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a, or any cause of action, in this; that the causes of action therein set forth, and each of them, is and are barred by the provisions of Section 335 and Subdivision 2 of Section 336 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

VIII. That the said second amended complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a, or any cause of action, in this; that the causes of action set forth therein, and each of them, is and are barred by the provisions of Sections 335 & 337 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

IX. That the said second amended complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a, or any cause of action, in this; that the causes of action set forth therein, and each of them, is and are barred by the provisions of Section 335 and by Subdivisions 2 & 4 of Sections 338 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

X. That the said second amended complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a, or any cause of action, in this; that the causes of action set forth therein, and each of them, is and are barred by the provisions of Section 335 and by Subdivision 1 of Section 339 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

XI. That the said second amended complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a, or any cause of action, in this; that the causes of action set forth therein, and each of them, is and are barred by the provisions of Sections 335 & 343 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

XII. That the said second amended complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a, or any cause of action, in this; that plaintiff and his said assignor, have both, and each of them, been guilty of great and unpardonable delay, laches and neglect in preferring their alleged complaints, and in setting forth their pretended causes of action, and in commencing this action, and that plaintiff is therefore not entitled to any relief in this Court.

XIII. That the said second amended complaint is ambiguous, unintelligible and uncertain, in this: That it does not appear who were the “others” mentioned in line 23, page 4 of said second amended complaint, nor what, nor how much interest said “others” had in said premises described in said second amended complaint, or any portion thereof; nor whether said “others” were the same as the “co-tenants” of the defendant Baker, mentioned in Line 7, Page 5 of said second amended complaint.

XIV. That there is a defect of parties defendant, in this, that Edward F. Beale, Sanford Lyon, Juan Foster and Francisco P. Foster, are not made parties defendant.

XV. That several causes of action have been improperly united in said second amended complaint, and that there are improperly united therein the following causes of action, towit:

First.---An action upon an express contract.
Secondly.---An action upon an implied contract.
Thirdly.---An action to enforce a claim to recover specific real property.
Fourthly.---An action to enforce claims against an alleged trustee by virtue of an alleged contract.
Fifthly.---An action to enforce claims against a trustee by operation of law.
Sixthly.---An action to recovery injuries to property.

And that the causes of action so improperly united do not all belong to one of the classes mentioned in Section 427 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California, and are not separately stated in said second amended complaint.

Wherefore, said defendant prays that this demurrer be sustained, said action be dismissed, and for his costs in this behalf expended.

Well, Van Dyke & Lee
Attorneys for Defendant

October 27, 1888