Judge: Gail Killefer, Case: 23STCV26231, Date: 2025-02-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV26231 Hearing Date: February 11, 2025 Dept: 37
HEARING DATE: Tuesday, February 11, 2025
CASE NUMBER: 23STCV26231
CASE NAME: People of the State of California, ex rel. Allstate Insurance Company
v. Pacific MRI, A Nursing Corporation, et al.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff People of the State
of California, ex rel. Allstate Insurance Company
OPPOSING PARTY: Defendant Amjad Safvi, M.D.
TRIAL DATE: Not set.
PROOF OF SERVICE: OK
PROCEEDING: Demurrer
to Answer
OPPOSITION: 29 January 2025
REPLY: 04
February 2025
TENTATIVE: Plaintiff’s demurrer to Defendant Safvi’s
First Amended Answer is sustained with leave to amend. Defendant Safvi is
granted 10 days leave to amend. The court sets the OSC RE: Amended Answer for February
28, 2025, at 8:30 a.m.
Background
On
October 25, 2023, People of the State of California, ex rel. Allstate Insurance
Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint for violations of the Insurance Frauds
Prevention Act (“IFPA”) against Pacific MRI, A Nursing Corporation (“Pacific
MRI”); Sarabjit Singh Anand, R.N., N.P. (“Anand”); GA Management and Consulting
LLC (“GA Management”); Mustafa Asghari (“Asghari”); Mars Healthcare Inc.
(“Mars”); Nicholas Dzebolo, M.D. (“Dzebolo”); Amjad Safvi, M.D. (“Safvi”); and
Does 1 to 200 inclusive.
Defendant Safvi filed a First
Amended Answer (“FAA”) on November 27, 2024. Plaintiff now demurs to the FAA.
Defendant Safvi opposes the demurrer. The matter is now before the court.
I. Legal Standard
A verified complaint must be denied
positively or according to information and belief. A general denial is
effective to controvert all material allegations of an unverified
complaint. (CCP, § 431.30(d).) Anything less than a general denial
of the whole complaint is a “qualified” or “specific” denial. A defendant
can direct his or her denials to specific sentences, paragraphs, of parts of
the complaint. Although not widely used, a defendant can also effectively
deny allegations in the complaint by alleging contrary or inconsistent facts.
The same pleading of “ultimate facts” rather than evidentiary
matter or legal conclusions is required as in pleading a complaint. 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. (FPI
Development, Inc. v. Nakashimi (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 384.) The
various affirmative defenses must be separately stated and must refer to the
causes of action to which they relate “in a manner by which they may be intelligently
distinguished.” (CCP, § 431.30(g).) Defenses must be pleaded in the
nature of “yes, the allegations [of the complaint] are true, but . . .” (FPI
Development, Inc., at p. 383.)
The allegations of the pleading demurred to must be regarded
as true. (South Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d
725, 730.) All that is necessary against a demurrer is that, upon
consideration of all of 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. (Id. at p. 733.) When
considering a demurrer to 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.” (Ibid.)
“[T]he demurrer to the answer admits all issuable facts pleaded therein and
eliminates all allegations of the complaint denied by the answer.” (Ibid.)
II. Discussion
Plaintiff demurs to Defendant
Safvi’s 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10ths affirmative defenses for waiver, unclean
hands, laches, and estoppel on the basis that they contain no supporting
factual allegation of fact sufficient to put Plaintiff on notice as to the
nature of the defenses. In addition to denials, the answer should contain all
affirmative defenses or objections to the complaint that defendant may have,
and that would otherwise not be in issue under a simple denial. Such
defenses or objections are “new matter.” (CCP § 431.30(b).) “Such ‘new
matter” is also known as ‘an affirmative defense.’ ” (Quantification
Settlement Agreement Cases (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 758, 812 (Quantification
Settlement Agreement Cases).) In other words, defense or objection based on
“new matter” “must be specifically pleaded.” (Advantec Group, Inc. v.
Edwin's Plumbing Co., Inc. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 621, 628.)
“The phrase ‘new matter’ refers to something
relied on by a defendant which is not put in issue by the plaintiff.” (Walsh
v. West Valley Mission Community College District (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th
1532, 1546.) Where the answer sets forth facts showing some essential
allegation of the complaint is not true, such facts are not new matters but are
denials. (Ibid.) “However, [n]o error or defect in a pleading
is to be regarded unless it affects substantial rights …. The primary function
of a pleading is to give the other party notice so that it may prepare its case
…, and a defect in a pleading that otherwise properly notifies a party cannot
be said to affect substantial rights. (Harris v. City of Santa Monica
(2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 240 [internal citations and quotation marks
omitted].)
Defendant Safvi’s 7th affirmative
defense for waiver alleges that Plaintiff’s own actions, omission or conduct,
resulted in waiver without elaborating what specific conduct Plaintiff engaged
in support defense of waiver. The 8th affirmative defense for unclean hands
similarly fails to allege what actions Plaintiff took or failed to take that
contributed Plaintiff’s harm, including what specific business practices
Defendant Safvi believes results in unclean hands. The 9th affirmative defense
fails to allege facts to support the allegation that Plaintiff had actual or
constructive knowledge of the facts giving rise to this action. Lastly, the
10th affirmative Defense alleges that “Defendant to reasonably believe that
Plaintiff had approved the transactions in question” but fails to state what
specific conduct led Defendant to believe Plaintiff approved the transactions.
Without specific factual
allegations to support Defendant Safvi’s affirmative defenses, Safvi defenses
consist solely of legal conclusions. (See Bagatti v. Department of
Rehabilitation (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 344, 366, fn. 8 [“These conclusionary
allegations, which allege no specific acts, are insufficient to survive
demurrer.”].)
“The particularity required in
pleading facts depends on the extent to which the defendant in fairness needs
detailed information that can be conveniently provided by the plaintiff.” (Ludgate
Ins. Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 592, 608.) The
court is aware that affirmative defenses are waived if not raised in the
Answer. (See California Academy of Sciences v. County of Fresno (1987)
192 Cal.App.3d 1436, 1442 [“A party who fails to plead affirmative defenses
waives them.”].) If Defendant Safvi insists that the specific standard for
affirmative defenses be relaxed because certain facts relevant to Defendant’s affirmative
defenses are known only to the Plaintiff and can be uncovered through
discovery, those allegations may be pled on information and belief provided
that Defendant could provide the information that lead the Defendant to believe
the allegations are true. (See Brown
v. USA Taekwondo (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 1077, 1106; Doe v. City of Los
Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 551, fn. 5.)
“As we have noted, affirmative
defenses cannot be pled as mere legal conclusions but must instead be alleged
with as much factual detail as the allegations of a complaint.” (Quantification
Settlement Agreement Cases, supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at p. 813.) As
Defendant Safvi’s fails to plead factual allegation to support Defendant’s
affirmative defenses the demurrer to answer is sustained with leave to amend.
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s demurrer to Defendant
Safvi’s First Amended Answer is sustained with leave to amend. Defendant Safvi
is granted 10 days leave to amend. The court sets the OSC RE: Amended Answer
for February 28, 2025, at 8:30 a.m.