Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 21STCV16302, Date: 2023-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV16302    Hearing Date: April 14, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On April 30, 2021, Plaintiff Ariel Tolentino filed this action for unpaid wages against Defendants Rubber Ducky Productions, Inc., Jack Hanasab, and Does 1 through 100. Georgette, Inc. was identified as Doe 1 and substituted in on December 1, 2022. Georgette answered the complaint on February 15, 2023.

            On February 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant demurrer against Georgette’s answer, arguing that Georgette asserted boilerplate defenses that fail to state sufficient facts and that the answer is uncertain.

LEGAL STANDARD

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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (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. (Ibid.) 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, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.) A complaint will survive demurrer if it sufficiently apprises the defendant of the issues, and specificity is not required where discovery will clarify the ambiguities. (See Ludgate Ins. Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 592, 608.) All reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the complaint. (Kruss v. Booth (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 699, 713.)

MEET AND CONFER

Before filing a demurrer or a motion to strike, the demurring or moving party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading demurred to or the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purposes of determining whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of an amended pleading that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.41, 435.5.)

The Court does not find that Plaintiff satisfied the meet and confer requirement. Plaintiff’s counsel merely emailed a draft of the demurrer to defense counsel three days before filing it. (Lee Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 1.) This does not indicate a good faith attempt to discuss the matter informally. The demurrer also fails on the merits, as discussed below.

DISCUSSION

            First, Plaintiff’s demurrer violates filing requirements. It is 24 pages, excluding the 16-page notice of motion. “Except in a summary judgment or summary adjudication motion, no opening or responding memorandum may exceed 15 pages.” (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1113(d).) “A memorandum that exceeds the page limits of these rules must be filed and considered in the same manner as a late-filed paper.” (Id., subd. (g).) The size of Plaintiff’s demurrer is excessive and unnecessary because Plaintiff merely repeats the same argument as to each of the 64 affirmative defenses asserted by Georgette. The crux of Plaintiff’s argument—that the answer is devoid of facts and is uncertain—is contained to a few short paragraphs. (See Dem. 39:14-40:7.)

            In any case, Plaintiff’s demurrer fails on the merits. The purpose of a pleading is to place a party on sufficient notice of the issues. Georgette’s answer pleads ultimate facts sufficient to inform Plaintiff of the nature of the affirmative defenses. Any remaining ambiguities may be resolved in discovery. (See Ludgate, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 608.)

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s demurrer to Georgette’s answer is OVERRULED.