Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV03023, Date: 2024-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV03023    Hearing Date: August 23, 2024    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Hamilton Law, Ltd. (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on March 9, 2022, Defendant Daniel Adam Shriver (“Defendant”) requested Plaintiff’s representation in an ongoing Domestic Violence Restraining Order (“DVRO”) trial where 2 days of testimony already transpired.  Plaintiff alleges that though Defendant could not pay the retainer before representation, Defendant represented he would be receiving a large disability settlement soon.  Plaintiff alleges that they entered into an Attorney-Client Fee Agreement for legal representation at $300/hour.  Plaintiff alleges that it provided extensive legal services totaling 120 hours, but Defendant did not pay the agreed retainer or any subsequent invoices.  The total bill is alleged to be in the amount of $38,715.  Plaintiff alleges that it was willing to let Defendant go with a retainer deposit amount of $4,000, plus $1,902 in costs, but Defendant refused to make payments.

The first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed January 10, 2024, alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) quantum meruit; (3) promissory estoppel; and (4) fraud/misrepresentation.

ON June 14, 2024, Defendant (a self-represented litigant) filed a General Denial. 

B.     Motion on Calendar

On July 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed a demurrer and motion to strike in one document.  The motions are directed against Defendant’s answer.  

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff demurs to Defendant’s answer and each affirmative defense on the ground that they fail to state sufficient facts to constitute a defense.  Plaintiff also moves to strike the 620 pages of documents attached to the answer on the grounds that they constitute irrelevant and improper materials and are redundant. 

            Defendant’s one-page answer is on the form PLD-050 and is handwritten.  His affirmative defenses include: (1) terms of the contract were not met; (2) failed to provide effective counsel; (3) failed to prepare for court; (4) failed to provide professional services; (5) failed to provide signed contract; (6) failed to file paperwork in a timely fashion; (7) made false and misleading statements; (8) inflated bill fraudulently claiming work accomplished; (9) revealed confidential information; (10) failed to perform as described; (11) ineffective counsel; and (12) elder abuse.  The form then states, “See Exhibits A-T.”  Thereafter, 620 pages of attachments follow.

            Defendant fails to 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.  As summarized above, the affirmative defenses consist of a list of phrases, but have no supporting facts.  As such, the demurrer to the answer is sustained.  As this is Defendant’s first attempt at filing the answer, the Court will allow leave to amend. There are form books providing the ordinary wording of the concepts that Defendant is trying to advance.

In light of the ruling on the demurrer, the motion to strike is taken off-calendar as moot.  The mere fact that the 620-pages in documents are voluminous is not a sufficient ground to strike the exhibits.  However, to the extent that documents are redundant and have been attached multiple times, Defendant should clean up the exhibits so that only relevant exhibits are provided. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER      

Plaintiff Hamilton Law, Ltd.’s demurrer to the answer is sustained with 20 days leave to amend.  The motion to strike is taken off-calendar in light of the ruling on the demurrer. Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.

DATED:  August 23, 2024                                         ___________________________

                                                                              John J. Kralik

                                                                              Judge of the Superior Court