What is the effect of the sham pleading doctrine on an amended complaint?

The sham pleading doctrine prevents a plaintiff from attempting to breathe life into a complaint by omitting relevant facts from an amended complaint that made a plaintiff's previous complaint defective. (Deveny v. Entropin, Inc. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 408, 425.) Under the sham pleading doctrine, a plaintiff cannot avoid allegations that are determinative to a cause of action simply by filing an amended complaint which omits the problematic facts or pleads facts inconsistent with those alleged in the original complaint. The doctrine precludes a plaintiff from amending a complaint to omit harmful allegations without explanation, from previous complaints to avoid attacks raised in demurrers. Instead, the plaintiff must satisfactorily explain such an omission. Failure to provide such an explanation allows the court to disregard the inconsistent allegations and read into the amended complaint the allegations of the superseded complaint. (Id. at pp. 425-426.)

Page 45