Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 21STUD02573, Date: 2022-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STUD02573    Hearing Date: September 27, 2022    Dept: 61

Plaintiff 5757 Wilshire LLC’s Motion to Strike Defendant California Medical Imaging Corp.’s Amended Answer is GRANTED with 10 days leave to amend as to the affirmative defenses listed in paragraph 3 of the answer form, those listed in the “Attachment – Affirmative Defenses,” and those listed on Attachment 3w. The demurrer is GRANTED without leave to amend as to the receivership defense included on form MC-025.

I.                   MOTION TO STRIKE TO ANSWER

A party against whom an answer has been filed may object by demurrer upon any one or more of the following grounds: (1) that the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense; (2) that the answer is uncertain, which term includes “ambiguous” and “unintelligible”; and (3) that, where the answer pleads a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the answer whether the contract is written or oral. (CCP § 430.20.)

An Answer’s affirmative defenses must “be separately stated, and the several defenses shall refer to the causes of action which they are intended to answer, in a manner by which they may be intelligibly distinguished.” (CCP § 431.30, subd. (g).) “Affirmative relief may not be claimed in the answer.” (CCP § 431.30, subd. (c).)

Affirmative defenses which are bare legal conclusions will not survive a demurrer. (FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 383–384.) However, “[t]here is no need to require specificity in the pleadings because modern discovery procedures necessarily affect the amount of detail that should be required in a pleading.” (Doheny Park Terrace Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Truck ins. Exchange (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1099, internal quotation marks omitted.) An affirmative defense is pleaded with “‘sufficient particularity’” if the pleadings, read in light of the case at hand, give notice to the plaintiff “of a potentially meritorious defense.” (Hata v. Los Angeles County Harbor/UCLA Medical Center (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1791, 1804.)

The affirmative defenses raised in Defendant California Medical Imaging Corp.’s (Defendant) Amended Answer come from four sources. The first are boxes checked on Judicial Council form UD-105, consisting of conclusory invocations of defenses of waiver, retaliation, discrimination, various tenant protection acts, failure to provide an opportunity to cure, and failure to state a claim. Following this section is a document called “Attachment – Affirmative Defenses,” in which Defendant checks boxes next to certain other defenses — statutes of limitation, waiver and estoppel, unclean hands, laches, failure to mitigate, unjust enrichment, etc. — which refer to descriptions of the doctrines in the abstract, once more without providing any facts to support the defense. Defendant next includes Attachment 3w, in which multiple other boxes are checked identifying flaws in the eviction notice, a failure of verification in the complaint, and purported estoppel and waiver of Plaintiff’s claims. Finally, in a continuation form of attachment 3w, Defendant raises the argument based on an order in a separate case appointing a receiver over Defendant’s business and certain of its property, which was already the subject of a demurrer brought by Defendant and overruled on February 15, 2022.

Plaintiff moves to strike each of these affirmative defenses as inadequately pleaded, and in the case of the arguments based on Defendant’s receivership, argues that it should be stricken because said defense was already rejected in the order overruling Defendant’s demurrer. (Motion at pp. 3–6.)

Plaintiff is correct in its characterization of Defendant’s defenses. The defenses consist solely of checked boxes next to ambiguous descriptions of broad facts or legal doctrines, and are not pleaded with sufficient detail to apprise the plaintiff of a potentially meritorious defense. Such defects may be remedied by filing an amended answer that does not merely list the defenses raised, but which states the underlying facts upon which the defense is based.

Defendant in opposition contends that it is not obligated to plead facts in an answer, which may be supported merely by a general denial of the allegations made in the complaint. (Opposition at p. 4.) This argument misses the point. Defendant’s answer does not contain just a general denial, but includes several attachments and assertions that it is raising various affirmative defenses. The present motion indeed makes no issue of Defendant’s general denial, and does not ask the court to strike the answer in toto, but instead specifically targets these very same defenses. And while defenses need not be advanced with special particularity, they must be alleged “as carefully and with as much detail as the facts which constitute the cause of action and are alleged in the complaint.” (Quantification Settlement Agreement Cases (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 758, 813.) Defendant’s defenses do not meet this low standard.

The only defense that comes close is one that has already been decided against Defendant, and which Defendant does not defend in opposition. The argument raised on attachment 3w concerning the receiver’s exclusive power to divest Defendant of the property was an issue of law that was raised and rejected by the court on February 15, 2022. Its inclusion in the pleadings serves no purpose.

Accordingly, the motion to strike is GRANTED without leave to amend as to the receivership defense raised on the attachment “3w continued,” and GRANTED with leave to amend as to the affirmative defenses listed in paragraph 3 of the answer form, those listed in the “Attachment – Affirmative Defenses,” and those listed on Attachment 3w.

Plaintiff to give notice.