Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: 22TRCV001130, Date: 2023-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV001130    Hearing Date: February 23, 2023    Dept: M

Hearing Date:                         February 23, 2023

Moving Parties:                      Plaintiff Brittany Harman

Responding Party:                  Defendant Kaleo Marketing, LLC

Demurrer to Amended Answer

            The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

RULING

The demurrer to the amended answer is SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND as to each of defendant’s affirmative defenses.

BACKGROUND

On November 7, 2022, plaintiff Brittany Harman filed a complaint against Kaleo Marketing, LLC and Michael Oberlander for (1) pregnancy discrimination, (2) retaliation for taking pregnancy leave, (3) violation of Family Rights Act, (4) violation of pregnancy disability leave, (5) disability discrimination, (6) failure to engage in a good faith interactive process, (7) failure to provide reasonable accommodations, (8) retaliation for reasonable complaint to employer, and (9) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

On December 14, 2022, defendants filed an amended answer.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

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.  “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.  Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.”  SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905.  “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 v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.

Plaintiff may demur to an answer on the ground of insufficient pleading of defenses.  CCP §430.20.  Under CCP §431.30(g), every affirmative defense “shall be separately stated, and the several defenses shall refer to the causes of action which they are intended to answer, in a manner by which they may be intelligibly distinguished.”  “The same pleading of ‘ultimate facts’ rather than ‘evidentiary’ matter or ‘legal conclusions’ is required as in pleading the complaint.”  Weil and Brown, Civ. Proc. Before Trial, 6:459.  “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.’”  Id. (quoting FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 367, 384).  “In general, whatever defendant bears the burden of proving at trial is ‘new matter,’ and thus must be specially pleaded in the answer.”  Civ. Proc. Before Trial, 6:431.  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.  

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff demurs to each of the 91 affirmative defenses asserted in defendants’ amended answer filed on December 14, 2022 on the ground that they fail to state sufficient facts to constitute a defense and are uncertain.

            Plaintiff argues that the affirmative defenses are unsupported by any facts and improperly contains matters plead as affirmative defense that are not defenses at all, “but are instead mere argumentative denials of the claims made in the Complaint.”  Plaintiff also contends that the affirmative defenses do not refer to the causes of action which they are intended to answer.  See CCP §431.30(g) (“The defenses shall be separately stated, and the several defenses shall refer to the causes of action which they are intended to answer, in a manner by which they may be intelligibly distinguished.”).

            In opposition, defendant argues that they have sufficiently pled each affirmative defense.

The court finds that the allegations are insufficient as to each of defendant’s affirmative defenses in its FAA as defendant has failed to plead the ultimate facts in support.

Accordingly, the demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

            Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.