Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 22STCV00687, Date: 2023-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00687    Hearing Date: May 2, 2023    Dept: 61

Plaintiffs Todd Smith, Bettina Kotrich, Max Ralston, Anna Sadro, Spencer Wayman and Christopher Weigen’s Demurrer to the Answer of Defendant UDR, Inc. is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

Plaintiffs to give notice.

I.                DEMURRER 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.)

Plaintiffs Todd Smith, Bettina Kotrich, Max Ralston, Anna Sadro, Spencer Wayman and Christopher Weigen (Plaintiffs) contend that each of the affirmative defenses contained in Defendant UDR, Inc.’s Answer is defective because each is pleaded with conclusions without the addition of any new supporting facts. (Demurrer at pp. 9–13.)

Plaintiffs did not meet and confer before filing this demurrer. A party bringing a demurrer to a complaint, cross-complaint, or answer is required to meet and confer regarding the grounds for the demurrer before it is filed. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41, subd. (a).) Plaintiffs here filed the demurrer on February 22, 2023, just six days after the answer was filed on February 16. Although Plaintiffs in reply contend that they met and conferred with Defendant’s counsel on February 14, 2023, this is impossible, as the answer was not filed or served until two days later. (Reply at p. 2.)

However, “[a] determination by the court that the meet and confer process was insufficient shall not be grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(4).) Although Defendant had little notice of the demurrer before it was filed, it had notice before filing its opposition, when it might have filed an amended pleading answering the objections of the demurrer. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 472, subd. (a).) The court will thus rule upon the demurrer.

Plaintiffs’ characterization of Defendant’s affirmative defenses is accurate. The 22 affirmative defenses that Defendant presents are terse legal conclusions, rather than “as 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.)

The demurrer is therefore SUSTAINED as to each affirmative defense with leave to amend.