Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

December 20, 2022

22STCV25529

-Demurrer filed by Plaintiff Jianna Bonomi as to the Answer filed by Defendant Turo, Inc.

-Demurrer filed by Plaintiff Jianna Bonomi as to the Answer filed by Defendant Grant Kazarian

Both demurrers are overruled.

Moving party to provide notice.

This is an action for negligence and motor vehicle negligence arising from a vehicle collision that took place in February 2021. Plaintiff Jianna Bonomi filed her Complaint against Defendants Turo, Inc. and Grant Kazarian on August 8, 2022.

Defendants filed and served their answers on October 26, 2022.

Plaintiff filed the instant demurrers to Defendants’ Answers on November 16, 2022.

Plaintiff demurs to all the affirmative defenses in Defendants’ Answers on the grounds that they consist of boilerplate language that do not allege any specific facts. Plaintiff argues the Answers do not state facts sufficient to support Defendants’ defenses and are uncertain to the point that Plaintiff is unable to formulate a meaningful discovery plan.

Defendants argues that their defenses were adequately pled.

Plaintiff reiterates arguments from her motion and argues that Defendants’ references to any alleged deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Complaint are irrelevant.

Within ten (10) days of service of an answer, a party against whom an answer has been filed may object by demurrer.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.40.)  Unlike a demurrer to a complaint or cross-complaint, a demurrer to an answer is limited to three grounds:  

 

(a) The answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense;  

(b) The answer is uncertain; or  

(c) Where the answer pleads a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the answer whether the contract is written or oral.  

 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 430.20.)  

A court has discretion to consider late-filed demurrers if good cause is shown and the delay does not exceed an additional 30 days without the adverse party’s consent. (Code Civ. Proc., §1054, subd. (a).)

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.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.30, subd. (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. 

 

In addition to denials, the answer should contain any and 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.30, subd. (b).)  Generally, a defendant bears the burden of proving “new matter” and, as such, must be specifically pleaded in the answer.  (California Academy of Sciences v. County of Fresno (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1436, 1442.)  “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; see also Cahil Bros., Inc. v. Clementina Co. (1962) 208 Cal.App.2d 367, 385 [“The basic consideration is whether the matters of defense are responsive to the essential allegations of the complaint, i.e., whether they are contradicting elements of plaintiff’s cause of action or whether they tender a new issue, in which case the burden of proof is upon the defendant as to the allegation constituting such new matter.”].)  Where the answer sets forth facts showing some essential allegation of the complaint is not true, such facts are not new matter but are denials.  (Ibid.; see also Statefarm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 721, 725 [holding a matter negating an essential allegation in the complaint does not constitute a new matter, and therefore, need not be specifically pled by the defendant].)   

 

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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.30(g).)  Defenses must be pleaded in the nature of “yes, the allegations [of the complaint] are true, but . . .”  (FPI Development, Inc., supra, 231 Cal.App.3d at p. 383.) 

A party filing a demurrer “shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., section 430.41(a).) “The parties shall meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. If the parties are not able to meet and confer at least five days prior to the date the responsive pleading is due, the demurring party shall be granted an automatic 30-day extension of time within which to file a responsive pleading, by filing and serving, on or before the date on which a demurrer would be due, a declaration stating under penalty of perjury that a good faith attempt to meet and confer was made and explaining the reasons why the parties could not meet and confer.” (Code Civ. Proc., section 430.41(a)(2).) A failure to meet and confer does not constitute grounds to sustain or overrule a demurrer. (See Code Civ. Proc., sections 430.41 (a)(4).)

Plaintiff demurs to Defendants’ answers on the grounds that they fail to state facts sufficient to constitute defenses and because they are uncertain.

Plaintiff’s demurrers are untimely. Defendants Turo, Inc. and Grant Kazarian both served their answers on October 26, 2022 via mail and electronic transmission. However, Plaintiff filed her demurrers to Defendants’ answers on November 16, 2022, 21 days after Defendants served their answers. Because the demurrers were filed well-beyond the 10-day deadline prescribed by Code Civ. Proc., Section 430.40(b), the demurrers are untimely. Plaintiff has provided no good cause for the late filing of the pleadings. Therefore, the demurrers are overruled.