Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV01184, Date: 2023-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV01184    Hearing Date: October 13, 2023    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Rachel Satterfield (“Plaintiff”) alleges that at various, multiple times prior to filing the complaint and within 1 year thereof, Defendant Hunter Warfield, Inc. (“HWI”), on behalf of Defendant GPK & Associates LLC (“GPK”) contacted Plaintiff in connection with collection of an alleged debt.  Plaintiff alleges that HWI reported to Plaintiff’s credit report, furnishing false and misleading information about the nature and amount of the debt.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to conduct an adequate investigation of Plaintiff’s complaints and failed to implement corrective actions.  Plaintiff alleges that she does not owe the alleged debt. 

The complaint, filed May 30, 2023, alleges causes of action for: (1) violation of Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Civ. Code, § 1788 et seq.); (2) violation of the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (Civ. Code, § 1785.25(a)); and (3) violation of the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Profs. Code, § 17200 et seq.).  

B.     Answer and Cross-Complaint

On August 10, 2023, GPK filed an answer to the complaint.  The answer includes a general denial and 22 affirmative defenses.

On August 10, 2023, GPK filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff for breach of contract and money damages.

C.     Demurrer on Calendar

On August 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a demurrer to GPK’s answer to the complaint. 

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff demurs to GPK’s answer to the complaint on the grounds that it does not allege facts that are sufficient to constitute a defense and/or the defense are uncertain. 

            The Court has reviewed GPK’s answer and finds that the affirmative defenses are not adequately pled.  First, CCP § 431.30(g) requires that “[t]he defenses shall 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.”  In the answer, Defendant generally states that the affirmative defenses apply to all of Plaintiff’s claims, but fails to state how these defenses separately apply to each cause of action. 

Second, Defendant fails to specifically plead any ultimate facts to support how these defenses apply to bar Plaintiff’s causes of action or absolve Defendant from liability.  (FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashimi (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 384 [stating that answer must aver facts as carefully as “new matter” pursuant to CCP § 431.30(b) and with as much detail as the facts which constitute the cause of action and which are alleged in the complaint].) “The same pleading of ‘ultimate facts’ rather than ‘evidentiary’ matter or ‘legal conclusions’ is required as in pleading the complaint.”  (Civ. Proc. Before Trial, Rutter Guide (June 2023 Update) Ch. 6-C, § 6:459.)  “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.’”  (Id. [quoting FPI Development, supra, 231 Cal.App.3d at 384].)  “In general, any issue on which defendant bears the burden of proving at trial is ‘new matter’ and must be specially pleaded in the answer.”   (Civ. Proc. Before Trial, supra, § 6:431.)  Plaintiff may demur to an answer on the ground of insufficient pleading of defenses (CCP § 430.20).  (Id., § 6:470.)  The allegations of the answer do not allege sufficient facts and, without supporting facts, the affirmative defenses are also uncertain.

The Court sustains the demurrer to the answer.  As this is GPK’s first attempt at the pleading, the Court will allow leave to amend. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Rachel Satterfield’s demurrer to Defendant GPK & Associates LLC’s answer to the complaint is sustained with 20 days leave to amend.

Plaintiff shall give notice of this order.