Legal Question in Civil Litigation in California

We keep telling you: a demurrer is not about any determination of facts. It is a determination whether the facts IN THE COMPLAINT are sufficient to state a legally recognized cause of action which would entitle the plaintiff to a judgment. If there are judicially noticeable documents that the complaint must address in order to state a cause of action, the court may consider the existence of those documents. Period. The true facts of the case are not on trial in a demurrer, only the Complaint and in some cases what is in the public record. Truth is irrelevant, only what claims are stated in the Complaint, the manner in which they are stated, and whether they properly address what is in the public record, are under consideration.

How do you know your statement that "real estate documents are now being revealed showing signatures of robo signers as Vice Presidents of MERS endorsing documents on behalf of mortgage bankers who have filed for bankruptsy and gone" is true? Is it universally known that the signer of THAT particular document is a robo signer, that THAT person is not actually a V.P. of MERS, that MERS is not the authorized agent for THOSE mortgage bankers, or that THOSE mortgage bankers are bankrupt, or anything else? Of course not. So your situation is not analogous at all to an allegation in a compliant that a 9/11 hijacker entered into a contract on 9/12. If a plaintiff files a complaint that contains allegations that are contradicted by a document in the pubic record, the court may take judicial notice of the document and a demurrer will be sustained, unless the complaint also pleads the existence of that document and that it is somehow invalid, fraudulent, or as a matter of some law it does not defeat the plaintiff's claim. That demurrer should, however, be sustained with leave to file an amended complaint containing the missing allegations that the document is invalid.