Legal Question in Civil Litigation in California

Unless you want the Court to grant the demurrer, every demurrer deserves an opposition. A demurrer on the grounds that the complaint lacks sufficient facts to allege a cause of action admits all properly pled allegations of the complaint and alleges that even if all allegations are true the complaint fails to state a cause of action. If the Court agrees that the complaint lacks sufficient facts to allege a cause of action, the demurrer will be granted either with or without leave to amend. If the demurrer is granted without leave to amend (meaning the court founds that no cause of action could ever be stated based upon the facts pled in the complaint), the action will be dismissed. I'm not sure what you mean by "RJN."

Not sufficient facts is FAR and away the most common grounds for a demurrer to be granted. It is the first in the list of grounds for a demurrer to be granted in the code section governing demurrers. So OF COURSE you have to respond, unless you agree that your complaint fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action against the defendants, in which case you should file an amended complaint that corrects the defects. You are in way over your head, quite frankly. As the old saying goes, if you can't afford an attorney, you must be able to afford to lose the case. In nearly 25 years as a trial lawyer I have never once seen a self-represented plaintiff win against a lawyer, and I've never heard of it happening either.