Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: SC127941, Date: 2023-05-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: SC127941    Hearing Date: May 5, 2023    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Parsa, et al. v. Zoopri Inc., Case No. SC127941

Hearing Date May 5, 2023

Parsas Plaintiffs’ Demurrer to First Amended Answer

The Parsas plaintiffs’ claims are based on two 2008 promissory notes, which defendant Sean Abdali alleges he did not sign. Abdali filed a first amended answer containing thirteen affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs demur to affirmative defenses one through twelve.

A party may demur to an answer on the grounds that the answer does not state sufficient facts to constitute a defense. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §431.20. An affirmative defense, like a cause of action, must be pleaded using ultimate facts, rather than legal conclusions. FPI Dev., Inc., v. Naskashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 384.

Plaintiffs argues the first through twelfth affirmative defenses are set forth in a conclusory, boilerplate manner, and each merely states the relevant principles, without specific facts showing how the defense applies.

The court agrees the first and third through twelfth affirmative defenses are conclusory. Abdali states the elements of each affirmative defense without pleading any ultimate facts. The opposition explains facts supporting each affirmative defense, but the answer must be amended to include supporting facts.

The demurrer to the second affirmative defense based on the statute of limitations fails because as a matter of law, as the statute of limitations can be pleaded generally. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §458. SUSTAINED with ten days leave to amend.