Judge: Carolyn M. Caietti, Case: 37-2023-00012161-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-11-16 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 02, 2023

11/03/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-70 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Carolyn Caietti

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2023-00012161-CU-BC-CTL PRIME HEALTHCARE PARADISE VALLEY LLC VS HARDER MD [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiff Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley, LLC's Demurrer to Defendant's Answer is OVERRULED IN PART AND SUSTAINED IN PART WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND (Aff. Defenses Nos. 2-8).

An answer should contain whatever denials or affirmative defenses are necessary to controvert the material allegations in the complaint. (C.C.P., § 431.30.) A demurer to an answer may be taken to the whole answer or to any one or more of the several defenses alleged in the answer. (C.C.P., § 430.50(b).) A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) No other extrinsic evidence can be considered (i.e., no 'speaking demurrers'). (Ion Equip. Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881.) Courts must liberally construe the pleading with a view to substantial justice between the parties.

(C.C.P., § 452; Kotlar v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1120.) Here, Defendant's Answer contains 28 affirmative defenses.

The demurrer to Affirmative Defense Nos. 2-8 relate to negligence (comparative liability, negligence of Plaintiff, failure to exercise ordinary and reasonable care, comparative contribution, assumption of risk, apportionment of fault). It is not explained how these defenses are necessary to controvert the material allegations of this breach of contract case and insufficient facts constitute these defenses. Defendant does not identify how an amendment would cure these defects. For Nos. 2-8, the demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

For all other affirmative defenses, under the liberal pleading policies, each affirmative defense states sufficient facts to constitute the defense. The primary function of a pleading is to give the other party notice so that it may prepare its case and any errors or defects in a defendant's pleading of new matter should be disregarded, as long as the pleading puts the plaintiff on notice that the defendant is asserting a particular defense. (See, Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 240; see also, Doheny Park Terrace Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exchange (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1098-99 (explaining the distinction between conclusions of law and ultimate facts is not at all clear and involves at most a matter of degree, what is important is that the pleading contain sufficient facts to apprise the other party of the basis upon which relief is sought and modern discovery procedures necessarily affect the amount of detail that should be required in a pleading).) Defendant's Answer sufficiently provides Plaintiff with such notice.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2975871  39 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  PRIME HEALTHCARE PARADISE VALLEY LLC VS HARDER MD  37-2023-00012161-CU-BC-CTL To the extent the demurrer is based on grounds of uncertainty, the demurrer is overruled. (Chen v. Berenjian (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 811, 822 ['A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.'].) For the remaining defenses, the demurrer is OVERRULED.

Concluding Orders For these reasons, the demurrer is OVERRULED IN PART AND SUSTAINED IN PART WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND (as to Aff. Defenses Nos. 2-8).

This minute order will be the Court's final order. Plaintiff is ordered to serve written notice of the Court's final order on all parties by November 7, 2023.

The parties are reminded to comply with Department 70's Policies and Procedures and to provide courtesy copies of all motion paperwork.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2975871  39