Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 21STCV45862, Date: 2023-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV45862    Hearing Date: May 15, 2023    Dept: 28

Plaintiffs Thomas Forbes and Lori Forbes’s Demurrer Defendant Jose Abundio’s Answer

Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On December 16, 2021, Plaintiffs Thomas Forbes (“Thomas”) and Lori Forbes (“Lori”) filed this action against Defendant Jose Abundio (“Defendant”) for negligence.

On January 25, 2023, Defendant filed an answer. Defendant filed a new answer on March 23, 2023.

On April 3, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Demurrer to Defendant’s Answer to be heard on January 20, 2023. On April 28, 2023, Defendant filed an opposition.

Trial is scheduled for March 11, 2024.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiffs request that the Court sustain the demurrer to Defendant’s answer.

Defendant requests the Court overrule the demurrer.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 430.10 states: “The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds: (a) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading; (b) The person who filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to sue; (c) There is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action; (d) There is a defect or misjoinder of parties; (e) The pleading does not state

facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; (f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, “uncertain” includes ambiguous and unintelligible; and (g) In an action founded upon a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct.”

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 1216, 1228.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by proper judicial notice. (CCP § 430.30(a).) A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905.) Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Id.) The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action. (Hahn, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)

The critical inquiry when a plaintiff demurs to an answer is whether the answer raises a defense to plaintiff’s stated cause of action. (Timberidge Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Santa Rosa (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 873, 879-880.) The demurrer raises the objection that the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense. (Id. at 880.)

Demurrers to a complaint or an answer generally follow the same rules; however, there are some important differences. (South Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 733.) First, for a demurrer to an answer, the defect in question need not appear on the face of the answer. (Id.) “The determination of the sufficiency of the answer requires an examination of the complaint because its adequacy is with reference to the complaint it purports to answer. [Citations.] This requirement, however, does not mean that the allegations of the complaint, if denied, are to be taken as true, the rule being that the demurrer to the answer admits all issuable facts pleaded therein and eliminates all allegations of the complaint denied by the answer. [Citations.]” (Id.) Second, for purposes of a demurrer to an answer, each defense in the answer must be considered separately without regard to any other defense. (Id. at 733-34.) Thus, a separately stated defense that is sufficient in form and substance when viewed in isolation does not become insufficient when, on looking at the answer, that defense appears inconsistent with other parts of the answer. (Id.) Third, because a defendant is entitled to plead inconsistent defenses, where one separate answer denies all of the allegations of the plaintiff's complaint, the

plaintiff is not excused from making proof of the material facts because of admissions of some or all of them found in other and separate answers of the defendant. (Id. at 734.)

DISCUSSION

In evaluating a demurrer, the Court reads the answer in the context of the complaint. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that Plaintiffs were injured when Defendant’s vehicle negligently collided with Plaintiffs’ vehicle at a high rate of speed. It specifically states that Defendant’s vehicle collided with the rear end of Plaintiffs’ vehicle.

Plaintiffs rightfully note that Defendant’s answer does not assert whether he admits or denies any part of the alleged facts of the complaint. Defendant’s answer contains a line that states, “in addition to the admissions and denials stated above...,” but provides no admissions or denials above. The primary intent of an answer is to provide Plaintiffs with an understanding of the defenses and denials being asserted. Here, Defendant has not admitted or denied the facts in the complaint in any capacity. Without the context of admissions or denials, the affirmative defenses lack information necessary to meet the pleading standard. As is, the answer is confusing and incomplete. The Court sustains the demurrer.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs Thomas Forbes and Lori Forbes’s Demurrer Defendant Jose Abundio’s Answer is SUSTAINED, with 30 days leave to amend.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.