Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 21STCV27900, Date: 2022-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV27900    Hearing Date: August 9, 2022    Dept: 72

DEMURRER TO AMENDED ANSWER

TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

Date:          8/9/22 (9:30 AM)                   

Case:        Family Choice Private Duty Agency v. Kamerron Easton (21STCV27900)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Cross-Complainant Kamerron Easton’s Demurrer to Amended Answer to Cross-Complaint is OVERRULED.

Cross-complainant demurs to the 2nd through 6th, 8th through 16th, and 19th affirmative defenses asserted in the Amended Answer to the Cross-Complaint on the ground that cross-defendants Family Choice Private Duty Agency, Inc. and Shellydale Princess Gray did not state sufficient facts to constitute any defense.

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.’” (Quantification Settlement Agreement Cases (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 758, 812-13, citing FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 384.) Here, the Cross-Complaint sets forth specific facts supporting each cause of action, including how cross-defendants overcharged decedent Marilyn Ashby. (Cross-Complaint at 5:23-13:24.) Accordingly, the 2nd through 6th, 8th through 16th, and 19th affirmative defenses must be factually specific.

With respect to the 4th affirmative defense for Laches, 5th affirmative defense for Unclean Hands, and 8th affirmative defense of Statute of Limitations, cross-defendants withdrew these affirmative defenses. Because these defenses are no longer part of the Amended Answer, the demurrer to the 4th, 5th, and 8th affirmative defenses is OVERRULED as MOOT.

With respect to the other affirmative defenses at issue, the Court finds that cross-defendants plead sufficient facts supporting the defenses. For example, for the 2nd affirmative defense of Consent, the 3rd affirmative defense of Estoppel, and the 6th affirmative defense of Waiver, cross-defendants allege that decedent Marilyn Ashby consented to the alleged overbilling based on her signature on a modified contract with Family Choice, paying invoices issued by Family Choice, and signing checks to caregivers. (Amended Answer at 3:3-9, 3:12-17, 4:3-7.) Whether decedent’s signing of checks was a result of undue influence is a question of fact to be resolved at summary judgment or trial.

With respect to the 9th affirmative defense of Failure to Mitigate, cross-defendants allege that cross-complainant has not mitigated his damages because he is over-litigating. (Amended Answer at 4:19-23.) With respect to the 10th affirmative defense of Indemnification and Contribution, cross-defendants reference the forgery of checks, which cross-complainant alleged in the Cross-Complaint (Cross-Compl. 16:13-14), and state that they are entitled to indemnification against other parties who may be the cause of cross-complainant’s damages (Amended Answer at 4:26-5:3). With respect to the 11th affirmative defense for Good Faith, cross-defendants allege that they acted reasonably and in good faith, as well as provided caregiving services to decedent. (Amended Answer at 5:6-10.)

With respect to the 12th affirmative defense of Comparative Negligence, cross-defendants allege that cross-complainant was the cause of the alleged damages because he failed to exercise ordinary care in writing checks directly to caregivers. (Amended Answer at 5:13-17.) With respect to the 13th affirmative defense of compliance, cross-defendants allege that Family Choice is not liable for any damages because it was in compliance with statutes, regulations, and industry standards. (Amended Answer at 5:20-23.) With respect to the 14th affirmative defense of Offset, cross-defendants allege that cross-complainant’s damages must be offset to the degree that he caused such damages, including by writing checks to decedent’s caregivers. (Amended Answer at 5:27-6:3.) With respect to the 15th affirmative defense of No Authorization and Ratification and the 16th affirmative defense of Third Party, cross-defendants allege that, to the extent their employees forged decedent’s signature on checks, cross-defendants did not authorize or ratify the forgery. (Amended Answer at 6:6-11, 6:14-19.)  With respect to the 19th affirmative defense of Parol Evidence, cross-defendants allege that decedent agreed in a written contract that the terms contained therein were the full agreement. (Amended Answer at 7:9-13.)

Irrespective of how the detailed the Cross-Complaint may be, at the pleading stage, the answering cross-defendant is required only to plead ultimate facts, not each evidentiary fact that will establish the merit of an affirmative defense. (See C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872; Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550.) Cross-defendants’ affirmative defenses consist of ultimate facts upon which cross-complainant can ascertain supporting evidence in discovery.

The demurrer is OVERRULED.