We disagree. We review the trial court's ruling on a demurrer de novo. (Lee v. Hanley (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1295, 1300.) Thus, the court's weighing of the facts is irrelevant to our inquiry. If the demurrer can be sustained on any ground raised, we must affirm.

(Ibid.) We review a demurrer de novo. (Lee v. Hanley (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1295, 1300.) Nothing in the record supports plaintiffs' argument the judge did not spend sufficient time to review the demurrer and the allegations of the first amended complaint.

THE COURT ON THE COURT'S own motion, the opinion filed in this case on July 15, 2014, 227 Cal.App.4th 1295; __Cal.Rptr.3d __ is hereby ORDERED modified as follows and the petition for rehearing is DENIED: 1. On page 3 of the opinion [227 Cal.App.4th 1298, advance report, 1st par., line 5], after the sentence reading, “We hold that, to the extent a claim is construed as a wrongful act not arising in the performance of legal services, such as garden variety theft or conversion, section 340.6 is inapplicable[, ]” add the following footnote: “Of course, by so stating, we do not mean to imply that those are the only two causes of action to which the statute does not apply.”