As to their second contention, Defendants cite to Levy v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 150 Cal. App. 4th 1, 5 (2007) for the proposition that "[f]acts alleging a breach, like all essential elements of a breach of contract cause of action, must be pleaded with specificity." (Defs.' Mot. [Doc. 3] 13:15-17.)

As correctly asserted by Defendant, each element must be pled with specificity, including the contract's terms. Levey v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 150 Cal.App.4th 1, 5 (2007); Gautier v. General Tel. Co., 234 Cal.App.2d 302, 305 (1965) (holding that pleading with specificity requires setting out the actual terms of the contract). Plaintiff directs the Court to paragraphs six and seven of his Complaint, apparently arguing that he has sufficiently pled the terms of the contract. OPP at 6.

Leveyv. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 150 Cal. App. 4th 1, 5 (2007); Gautier v. General Tel. Co., 234 Cal. App. 2d 302, 305 (1965) (holding that pleading with specificity requires setting out the actual terms of the contract). Plaintiff directs the Court to paragraphs six and seven of his Complaint, apparently arguing that he has sufficiently pled the terms of the contract.

We agree with the trial court that plaintiff's breach of contract claim fails because plaintiff did not establish the existence of an agreement with Coinbase to provide the Bitcoin Gold to him. ( Sonic Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. v. AAE Systems, Inc. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 456, 464, 126 Cal.Rptr.3d 301 [elements of breach of contract cause of action are existence of a contract, plaintiff's performance, the other party's breach, and damages]; Levy v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1,5, 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 54 ( Levy ) [claim for breach of contract requires plaintiff specifically plead breach of agreed upon contractual provision].)It is undisputed that the User Agreement does not contain a provision requiring it to support or provide services for any particular digital currency created by a third party.

“Facts alleging a breach,” however, “must be pleaded with specificity.” (Levy v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1, 6–7, 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 54.) In reviewing an order sustaining a demurrer, the court does not assume the truth of “contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 580, subd. (a).) "[A] breach of contract cause of action[] must be pleaded with specificity." (Levy v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1, 5-6.) In the breach of contract cause of action, Owner alleged Contractor "breached the agreement by failing and refusing to complete the construction project under the terms of the agreement, failing to make the payments toward the construction loan under the amendment, and failing to pay [Cemex] for materials provided for the project.

This final step, however, does not provide a path to an absolute contractual entitlement to coverage, and a court may not rewrite a policy to bind an insurer to cover a risk which it did not contemplate covering, and for which it was not paid to provide coverage. ( Levy v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1, 7 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 54].) B. The Interpretation Issue Involved in This Case

Levy v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 150 Cal.App.4th 1, 5 (2007).

See Levy v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 150 Cal.App. 4th 1, 5 (2007) (“Facts alleging a breach, like all essential elements of a breach of contract cause of action, must be pleaded with specificity.”).

Defendants state that a “plaintiff must plead the facts of the breach with specificity, ” citing Levy v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 150 Cal.App. 5th 1 (2007). (Doc. No. 9)