Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 23STCV05812, Date: 2023-09-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV05812 Hearing Date: November 14, 2023 Dept: 30
Calendar No.
Callanta vs. Harbor
Health Care, Inc., et. al., Case
No. 23STCV05812
Tentative Ruling
re: Plaintiff’s Demurrer to Defendant’s
Answer
Plaintiff
Joann Callanta (Plaintiff) demurs to Affirmative Defenses Nos. One through Twenty-One
in Defendant Harbor Health Care, Inc.’s (Defendant) Answer to the First Amended
Complaint (FAC). The Court overrules the demurrer to the Eighth Affirmative
Defense and otherwise sustains the demurrer with ten (10) days leave to amend
the answer.
A plaintiff may demur to a defendant’s answer within 10
days of being served with the answer on three grounds: (1) failure to state
facts sufficient to constitute a defense; (2) uncertainty; or (3) failure to
state whether a contract alleged in the answer is written or oral. (Code Civ.
Proc. § 430.40, subd. (b).) The demurrer may be to the whole answer or to any
one or more of the several defenses set up in the answer. (Code Civ. Proc.,
§430.50(b).)
“Generally speaking, the determination whether an answer states a defense is
governed by the same principles which are applicable in determining if a
complaint states a cause of action.” (South Shore Land Co. v.
Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 732.) “[T]he demurrer
to the answer
admits all issuable facts pleaded therein and eliminates all allegations of the
complaint denied by the answer.”
(Id. at 733.) The same pleading of
“ultimate facts” rather than evidentiary matter or legal conclusions is
required as in pleading the complaint. The answer must aver facts as carefully
and with as much detail as the facts which constitute the cause of action
and which are alleged in the complaint. (FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashimi (1991)
231 Cal.App.3d 367, 384.)
In the FAC, Plaintiff alleges wage,
overtime, and meal and rest break claims against Defendant. Defendant’s Answer
asserts twenty-one affirmative defenses. Plaintiff demurs to all affirmative
defenses on the basis that the defenses are boilerplate legal conclusions.
The Court
agrees with Plaintiff that most of Defendant’s affirmative defenses are improperly
conclusory. For example, the Third Affirmative Defense for “Waiver and Estoppel
alleges only, “as a result of her own acts and/or omissions, Plaintiff has
waived any right which she may have had to recover, and/or is estopped from
recovering, any relief sought against Defendant.” (Answer ¶ 3.) The Sixth
Affirmative Defense for Unclean Hands alleges in full, “Plaintiff's claims are
barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrine of unclean hands.”
(Answer ¶ 6.) These defenses lack any supporting factual allegations, and the
remaining affirmative defenses are similarly deficient.
Defendant’s general allegations are
sufficient only to constitute the Eighth Affirmative Defense for “Lack of
Willfulness,” which alleges, “Plaintiff's claims for penalties under the
California Labor Code are barred because Defendant's alleged acts or omissions,
which Defendant denies, were not willful.” (Answer ¶ 8; c.f. McMillan v. Western Pacific R. Co. (1960) 54 Cal.2d 841, 845 [“It is settled that negligence
may be alleged in general terms…”].) Accordingly, the demurrer is sustained as
to all affirmative defenses except the Eighth.