Judge: Erick L. Larsh, Case: 2022-01265170, Date: 2023-05-25 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs David Hitchcock and Cornelia Spassoff’s

demurrer to answer is SUSTAINED as to the 2nd-14th, 16th-20th, and 22nd affirmative defenses, and otherwise OVERRULED.

Defendant Claudia Veronica Lopez-Figueroa is granted 10 days leave to file a first amended answer to complaint.

1st affirmative defense. The failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is an objection rather than an affirmative defense, and thus a defendant need not allege facts in support of such a defense. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 430.80, subd. (a)).

15th affirmative defense. The statute of limitations defense must be pleaded in the answer either by alleging the facts constituting the time bar or by alleging the statute and the subdivision of the statute that bars the action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 458; see also Martin v. Van Bergen (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 84, 91). Defendant has plead the statute.

21st affirmative defense: Defendant plead sufficient facts to constitute the affirmative defense of novation/modification.

All other affirmative defenses. The answer fails to state facts sufficient to constitute these affirmative defenses; affirmative defenses must be alleged as carefully and with as much detail as the facts that constitute the causes of action alleged in the complaint. (See FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 384.)

The court clerk shall give notice.