Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr., Case: 23SMCV05621, Date: 2024-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV05621    Hearing Date: April 10, 2024    Dept: 205

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Beverly Hills Courthouse | Department 205

Background

This action arises from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on September 6, 2023. On December 1, 2023, Plaintiffs Mehrdad Farkhan and Aila Farkhan (“Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Felix Adalberto Sanchez (“Defendant”) and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, alleging a cause of action for negligence.

On February 6, 2024, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint, in which Defendant sets forth 15 affirmative defenses.

On February 13, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a demurrer to the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth affirmative defenses in the Answer. On March 27, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition to the demurrer, to which Plaintiffs replied on March 27, 2024.

Defendant’s sole argument in opposition to the demurrer is that Plaintiffs failed to meet and confer in good faith prior to filing the demurrer.

Meet and Confer

            Before filing a demurrer, the demurring party is required to meet and confer “in person, by telephone, or by video conference with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the demurrer 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, subd. (a).)

            The Court finds that the meet and confer requirement has not been met. The declaration of Plaintiffs’ counsel, Brian Paya (“Paya”), in support of the demurrer does not set forth meet and confer efforts between the parties. The Court will still assess the merits of the demurrer since failure to meet and confer does not provide a basis for overruling the demurrer. However, the Court reminds the parties of the need to comply with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Demurrer Standard

            “A party against whom an answer has been filed may object, by demurrer . . . to the answer” on the grounds that: “(a) [t]he answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense” or “(b) [t]he answer is uncertain.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.20, subd. (a)-(b).)

            “[T]he determination whether an answer states a defense is governed by the same principles which are applicable in determining if a complaint states a cause of action.” (South Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 732.) “A demurrer reaches only the contents of the pleading and such matters as may be considered under the doctrine of judicial notice.” (Ibid., internal quotations omitted.) “[A] demurrer does not . . . admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the pleading.” (Ibid.) In assessing a demurrer to the answer, “each so-called defense must be considered separately without regard to any other defense.” (Id. at p. 733.) An answer must not set forth mere legal conclusions but must articulate “facts averred as carefully and with as much detail as the facts which constitute the cause of action and are alleged in the complaint.” (FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 384.)

            “[T]he answer to a complaint must include [a] statement of any new matter constituting a defense. The phrase new matter refers to something relied on by a defendant which is not put in issue by the plaintiff . . . [and] where matters are not responsive to essential allegations of the complaint, they must be raised in the answer as new matter.” (Walsh v. West Valley Mission Community College Dist. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4^th 1532, 1546, emphasis in original.)

            Although courts construe pleadings liberally, sufficient facts must be alleged to support the allegations pled to survive a demurrer. (Rakestraw v. California Physicians' Serv. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4^th 39, 43.) Where a demurrer is sustained, leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) The burden is on the party who filed the pleading subject to demurrer to show the court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Ibid.)

Analysis

            Plaintiffs demur to the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth affirmative defenses in Defendant’s Answer. Plaintiffs contend that each of the challenged affirmative defenses fails to state facts to support the defense or is uncertain.

            The Court does not find that the Answer is uncertain because it is not so unclear where Plaintiffs are not apprised of the issues that must be met. (Bacon v. Wahrhaftig (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 599, 605.) Thus, the Court OVERRULES the demurrer of Plaintiffs to the Answer on the grounds of uncertainty.

            “[T]he primary function of a pleading is to give the other party notice so that it may prepare its case.” (Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4^th 203, 210.) “[A] defect in a pleading that otherwise properly notifies a party cannot be said to affect substantial rights.” (Ibid.) An affirmative defense is only required to put a plaintiff on notice of such defense raised in the answer. (Ibid.) A ruling grounded on the inadequacy of an answer “would be unfair . . . if the [answer] . . . give[s] notice to the plaintiff[] of a potentially meritorious defense.” (Jones v. Dutra Construction Co. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4^th 871, 876, emphasis in original.)

            The Court has reviewed Defendant’s Answer and the challenged affirmative defenses set forth therein. The Court finds that each affirmative defense puts Plaintiffs on notice of such defense. Thus, the Court finds that the affirmative defenses at issue in the demurrer are not insufficiently articulated and Plaintiffs can prepare their case. Under Harris v. City of Santa Monica, supra, 56 Cal.4^th 203, 210, the Court finds that the Answer states sufficient facts to constitute the affirmative defenses set forth therein. Defendant has described each affirmative defense with sufficient clarity for Plaintiffs to prepare their case.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Court OVERRULES the demurrer of Plaintiffs to Defendant’s Answer in its entirety.

Dated: April 10, 2024

__________________________________________

Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court