Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 21STCV39406, Date: 2024-03-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV39406 Hearing Date: March 12, 2024 Dept: 55
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:
Plaintiff’s Demurrer to Verified Answer to Second Amended Complaint.
The demurrer is overruled.
Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice, filed
10/5/23, of the trial transcript from Wong v. Heslam, containing testimony of
Defendant PETER DE WITTE, is denied. Hart v. Darwish (2017) 12
Cal.App.5th 218, 224-25.
BACKGROUND
In this case, Plaintiff SANDRA WILL CARRADINE
(“Plaintiff”), a self-represented litigant, brings claims based on a
long-running dispute she has with Defendants regarding her lease. Defendants DE
WITTE MORTGAGE INVESTORS FUND LLC, PETER DE WITTE, CLE Capital Partners, LLC,
and Christopher Powell filed an Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint
(“SAC”).
Plaintiff has filed a demurrer to the Answer, which
Defendants oppose.
LEGAL STANDARD
A party may file a demurrer to any of the defenses alleged
in an answer. CCP § 430.50(b). The demurrer may be made on the ground that the
defense does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense or that the
defense is uncertain. CCP § 430.20(a),
(b); Timberidge Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Santa Rosa (1978) 86 Cal.
App. 3d 873, 880. An answer should contain a defendant’s affirmative defenses
to the complaint that would otherwise not be at issue under a general denial of
the complaint’s allegations. Such affirmative defenses are “new matter.”
431.30(b)(2). To constitute new matter, affirmative defenses must be styled in
the fashion of “yes, the allegations are true, but …” FPI Dev., Inc. v.
Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 383. An answer’s affirmative defenses
must aver facts as carefully as is required for complaints. Id. at 384. “Affirmative defenses must not be pled as
‘terse legal conclusions,’…” but rather as facts averred in as much detail as
is required in complaints. In re
Quantification Settlement Agreement Cases (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 758, 813.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff argues that the affirmative defenses are
boilerplate and lack sufficient facts. A review of the affirmative defenses
shows that they adequately state facts to support such defenses and do not constitute
mere conclusions. Plaintiff contends that evidence exists that goes against the
affirmative defenses. Plaintiff also argues that the unlawful detainer judgment
precludes an affirmative defense, and other legal arguments about various
claimed affirmative defenses. A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the defenses;
this is not the proper vehicle to raise factual or legal disputes with
Defendants’ planned defenses. The Court therefore overrules the demurrer.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, the demurrer is overruled.