Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 21STCV34102, Date: 2023-03-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV34102 Hearing Date: March 24, 2023 Dept: 52
Cross-complainant Odalis C. Suarez
demurs to all 22 affirmative defenses alleged in the answer by cross-defendants
First American Title Company and Michelle Pascual.
Cross-defendants do not state
sufficient facts for any of their defenses. Affirmative
defenses must not be pled as “terse legal conclusions,” but “rather … as facts
averred as carefully and with as much detail as the facts which constitute the
cause of action and are alleged in the complaint.” (In re Quantification
Settlement Agreement Cases (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 758, 812-13, internal
quotes and citations omitted.) Rather than denying the plaintiff’s
allegations, affirmative defenses assert new allegations that would defeat the
plaintiff’s claims. (CCP § 431.30(b); FPI
Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367,
383-385.)
The
answer alleges 22 boilerplate affirmative defenses without supporting factual
allegations. For example, the fifth
affirmative defense of unclean hands alleges the cross-complaint’s causes of
action are “barred by reason of Suarez’s unfair and inequitable conduct in
their dealings with First American and Pascual, and in her dealings with
respect to the property at issue.” The
answer does not allege what dealings it refers to or how they were unfair or
inequitable. The sixth affirmative
defense of waiver similarly alleges “Suarez has waived her claims by her
conduct.” The answer does not allege
what conduct resulted in waiver.
The 10th
affirmative defense, failure to mitigate, alleges Suarez’s damages “were caused
and contributed to by Suarez’s failure to mitigate her damages.” The answer does not allege how Suarez failed
to mitigate her damages or what she should have done in mitigation. The 16th affirmative defense of equitable
estoppel alleges a defense based on Suarez’s “wrongful or willful conduct,” but
again does not identify that conduct.
The 18th affirmative defense, “conduct of others/comparative fault,”
does not allege whose conduct or what conduct was responsible for Suarez’s
injuries.
All the
answer’s affirmative defenses are alleged as terse legal conclusions. None states sufficient facts to constitute an
affirmative defense.
Disposition
Cross-complainant Odalis C. Suarez’s demurrer to all 22
affirmative defenses alleged in cross-defendants First American Title Company
and Michelle Pascual’s answer is sustained with 20 days’ leave to amend.