Demurrer vs Motion to Dismiss: California vs Federal Practice

A demurrer is California's pretrial pleading challenge; a motion to dismiss is the federal and majority-state equivalent. Both attack the legal sufficiency of a complaint, but they differ in form, substance, and procedural rules. Filing a demurrer when you should have filed a motion to dismiss (or vice versa) means filing the wrong document in the wrong court.

The discussion that follows covers the substantive overlap between the two motions, the procedural differences in California, why some states still use demurrers while most have switched to motions to dismiss, and how the demurrer relates to the more general Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss.

Same Substance, Different Form

Both a demurrer and a motion to dismiss say "the complaint, even if true, fails as a matter of law." The grounds overlap heavily: lack of jurisdiction, failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, lack of capacity to sue, and improper joinder all appear in both. The substantive analysis a court performs is similar, accepting well-pleaded facts as true and asking whether they support a legal claim.

The procedural differences come from history. California adopted its civil procedure code in 1872 and retained the older common-law and code-pleading terminology. Federal courts and most states modernized in 1938 with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which abolished the demurrer and replaced it with the motion to dismiss. California, Pennsylvania, and a few other jurisdictions kept the demurrer as a separate vehicle.

The Two Types of Demurrer

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, a general demurrer challenges a broader problem with a pleading that affects all of the claims brought, such as improper venue. A special demurrer objects to a particular problem with the details of a pleading, most commonly the failure to claim sufficient facts for a cause of action. The general demurrer roughly corresponds to a federal 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(2) motion (jurisdictional defects), while the special demurrer corresponds to a federal 12(b)(6) motion (failure to state a claim).

Special demurrers also reach defects unique to California pleading practice, like uncertainty (the complaint is so vague the defendant cannot understand what it must answer), ambiguity, or lack of capacity. These specific demurrer grounds are largely abolished in federal practice; the federal motion to dismiss does not recognize "uncertainty" as a freestanding ground.

Common Grounds for a Demurrer

California Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10 enumerates the demurrer grounds:

• (a) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading.
• (b) The person who filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to sue.
• (c) There is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action.
• (d) There is a defect or misjoinder of parties.
• (e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
• (f) The pleading is uncertain (ambiguous and unintelligible).
• (g) In a contract action, the pleading does not state whether the contract is written, oral, or implied.
• (h) Improper consolidation or joinder.

The most commonly invoked grounds are (e) failure to state facts sufficient and (f) uncertainty. Federal practice covers (a) and (b) through Rule 12(b)(1) and (2), and (e) through Rule 12(b)(6). The "uncertainty" demurrer in California has no direct federal analog.

Procedural Differences

Feature	Demurrer (CA)	Motion to Dismiss (Federal)
Code	CCP 430.10 et seq.	FRCP 12(b)
Filing deadline	30 days after service	21 days after service
Meet and confer	Required before filing	Not required (some districts impose it locally)
Briefing	Memorandum + demurrer	Memorandum + motion
Hearing	Oral argument default	Written submission default
Leave to amend	Liberally granted, often three chances	Liberally granted under Rule 15(a)(2)
Standard	Liberal construction; sufficiency of facts	Twombly/Iqbal plausibility

California Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 requires the demurring party to meet and confer with the plaintiff at least five days before filing, in person or by phone, to determine whether an agreement can be reached on the issues. Federal practice has no equivalent statewide rule, though local rules in some districts (and most magistrate judges) impose meet-and-confer obligations.

Pleading Standards: Liberal vs. Plausibility

California courts liberally construe the complaint and assume all material facts are true; the plaintiff need only state a "cause of action" under any legal theory. The federal Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard is stricter: well-pleaded facts must plausibly suggest entitlement to relief, not merely possibility. This means a complaint that survives demurrer in California state court might lose on a 12(b)(6) motion if removed to federal court.

Removal to federal court does not change the substantive law (state law claims still apply state law), but it does change the pleading standard, because federal procedural rules (including the plausibility test) apply in diversity cases. Defendants who can plausibly remove to federal court often do so for this reason alone.

What If Both Are Available?

If a case is filed in California state court, the defendant files a demurrer. If filed in or removed to federal court, the defendant files a motion to dismiss. The defendant cannot pick which vehicle to use; the choice is dictated by the forum. A defendant who wants the federal plausibility standard must remove the case (if grounds exist), then file a 12(b)(6) motion.

In federal court interpreting California law, the federal motion to dismiss governs, not the state demurrer. Erie doctrine generally requires federal courts sitting in diversity to apply federal procedural law, including pleading standards.

Charges Dismissed vs. Dropped

The colloquial confusion between charges being "dismissed" and "dropped" arises in the criminal context, not civil pleading practice. Although every case is different, it is generally better to have charges against you dismissed rather than dropped. When the charges are dropped (the prosecutor declines to pursue), the prosecution still has the opportunity to pursue a case against you at a later time if they gather additional evidence. A dismissal, especially with prejudice, is generally a more permanent outcome. The civil dismissal vocabulary in this article applies to civil litigation under Rule 12(b) or its state-court equivalents, not to criminal charges.

When You Need an Attorney

Demurrers and motions to dismiss require precise application of pleading standards and case law that varies by jurisdiction. Legal Tank's attorney-drafted motion to dismiss service handles federal and state-court motions, including California demurrers, with full citations to controlling authority. The motion to dismiss template form works as a federal Rule 12(b) starting point; California demurrers require a different format.

Related Civil Procedure Guides

• motion to dismiss strategy
• 12(b)(6) failure-to-state-a-claim motion
• sample motion to dismiss with annotations
• motion to dismiss vs. summary judgment posture
• with vs. without prejudice differences

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between demurrer and motion to dismiss?

A demurrer is a challenge to a particular claim that is made in court. A motion to dismiss is when a request is made to drop a court case. A demurrer or a motion to dismiss can be made on various grounds, for example, Bill Cosby's lawyer filed for a demurrer based on the statute of limitations. Demurrers are used in California and a few other states; motions to dismiss are used in federal court and most other states.

What are the two types of demurrer?

A general demurrer challenges a broader problem with a pleading that affects all of the claims brought, such as improper venue. A specific demurrer objects to a particular problem with the details of a pleading, most commonly the failure to claim sufficient facts for a cause of action. The general demurrer roughly corresponds to a federal 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(2) motion, while the special demurrer corresponds to a federal 12(b)(6) motion.

What are common grounds for a demurrer?

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10: (a) the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading; (b) the person who filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to sue; (c) there is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action; (d) there is a defect or misjoinder of parties; (e) the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; (f) the pleading is uncertain.

Is a demurrer the same as a motion to dismiss?

A demurrer and a motion to dismiss serve the same function, testing the legal sufficiency of a pleading, but they exist in different procedural systems. California, Pennsylvania, and a handful of other states use the demurrer; federal court and most other states use the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The substantive standard is largely the same: the court accepts well-pleaded facts as true and asks whether the pleading states a claim as a matter of law.