Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: "Amaya Perez v. Nu Care, Inc.", Date: 2023-07-26 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING:

For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff Mayra Amaya Perez’s Demurrer to Defendants’ Answer is SUSTAINED with 30-days leave to amend.

Plaintiff demurs to Defendants’ affirmative defense Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, and 16 through 26.  Plaintiff contends that five (5) of Defendants’ affirmative defenses, including affirmative defense numbers one (1), three (3), five (5), six (6), and twenty-three (23) fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense, are uncertain, and/or ultimately fail to plead adequate facts to put Plaintiff on notice of the basis and allegations supporting each of the defenses. Furthermore, affirmative defenses number six (6), and sixteen (16) through twenty-six (26) do not identify the specific cause of action referred to as required by Code of Civ. Proc. § 431.30(g).

In response, Defendants argue they have sufficiently plead each affirmative defense to put Plaintiff on notice of the defense alleged.

There are three grounds for a demurrer to an answer.  Relevant here, pursuant to CCP §430.20, a party may Demurrer to an Answer or Affirmative Defense(s), where the Answer or Affirmative Defense “does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense” or “is uncertain.” (See C.C.P. §430.20(a) and C.C.P. §430.20(b)).

Answers must aver facts as carefully and with as much detail as the facts which constitute the causes of action alleged in the complaint. (FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 CA3d 367, 384). A conclusory “laundry list” of affirmative defenses without supporting facts may not raise any issues of material fact, and a plaintiff may successfully demur to such a pleading. (Ibid.); (Quantification Settlement Agreement Cases (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 758, 812–813).  

Unlike the general demurrer to a complaint, the inquiry is not into the statement of a cause of action but whether the answer raises a defense to the plaintiff's stated cause of action. (Timberidge Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Santa Rosa (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 873, 879-880.)

The determination of whether an answer states a defense is governed by the same principles that apply in determining if a complaint states a cause of action. (South Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 CA2d 725, 732.) “[A]l that is necessary against a general demurrer is that upon a consideration of all the facts stated, it appears that the party whose pleading is attacked by such a demurrer is entitled to any relief at the hands of the court against his adversary, notwithstanding the facts may not be clearly stated, or may be intermingled with a statement of other facts irrelevant to the cause of action or defense shown, or although the plaintiff, in his complaint, or the defendant, in his answer, may demand relief to which he is not entitled under the facts alleged (Id. at p. 733)

An important difference is that in the case of a demurrer to the answer, as distinguished from a demurrer to the complaint, the defect in question need not appear on the face of the answer. 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. (Id. [citation]) 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. (Id. [citations])

Another rule, particularly applicable to the case of a demurrer to the answer, is that each defense must be considered separately without regard to any other defense. (Miller & Lux, Inc., v. San Joaquin Light & Power Corp., (1932) 120 Cal.App. 589, 601). Accordingly, a ‘separately stated defense or counterclaim which is sufficient in form and substance when viewed in isolation does not become insufficient when, upon looking at the answer as a whole, that defense or counterclaim appears inconsistent with or repugnant to other parts of the answer.’ (South Shore Land Co., supra, 226 Cal.App.2d at p. 733-734 [citations]).

The court also considers the competing factor that because the primary function of a pleading is to give the other party notice to prepare that party's case, 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). This principle is consistent with the rule that leave to amend a pleading should be liberally granted when there is no timeliness problem under a statute of limitations or prejudice to the opposing party. (Id.) The liberal granting of leave to amend a pleading addresses the issue presented in Alamo v Practice Mgt. Info. Corp. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 466, 482 that a defendant waives the right to assert a defense at trial when the defendant's answer does not include the defense and the defendant does not seek leave to amend the answer to assert the defense.

Here, Defendants’ general denial is sufficient, as no facts are needed to support the same.  However, as pointed out in the Demurrer and Reply, the Answer also contains multiple affirmative defenses which are uncertain and vague as no facts are alleged to support the affirmative defenses, but rather consists of a conclusory “laundry list” of affirmative defenses.

The Demurrer is sustained, with 30-days leave to amend, as to Defendants’ affirmative defenses Nos 1, 3, 5, 6, and 16 through 26.  Defendant shall file and serve an amended answer no later than 30-days from service of the notice of ruling.

Plaintiff to give notice.