Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 24STCP04228, Date: 2025-03-26 Tentative Ruling

PLAINTIFF’S DEMURRER TO DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF JUDGMENT

This action arises from a dispute between a homeowners association and its member. Plaintiff Barry W. Rosen (“Plaintiff”) is a member of the Clark Drive Homeowners Association (“HOA” or “Defendant”). As alleged in his Verified Complaint, Plaintiff and the HOA have a long-standing dispute. In this action for declaratory relief, Plaintiff seeks a determination of the validity of (1) all 2024 Board of Directors Meetings and other actions undertaken without a meeting in 2024 and (2) the HOA’s June 25, 2024 Board Resolution to levy a special assessment. Plaintiff also seeks restitution.

On January 27, 2025, Defendant filed its Verified Answer. The Verified Answer asserts general denials and affirmative defenses.

On February 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed a demurrer and motion to strike Defendant’s entire Verified Answer.

Because Plaintiff’s demurrer and motion to strike are based on the same grounds and seek essentially the same relief, the court considers them together.

Plaintiff concurrently filed a request judicial notice of the nine (9) documents in support of his demurrer.[1] Those documents include:

3. Transcript of Proceeding, dated January 25, 2024, in LASC Case No. 23STLC01807.

4. Minute Order requiring HOA to produce Shareholder documents and conduct a meeting, dated April 18, 2024, in LASC Case No. 23STLC01807.

5. Minute Order granting shareholder inspection of documents and for HOA to conduct a meeting, dated April 18, 2024, in LASC Case No. 23STLC01807.

6. Minute Order requiring HOA to produce documents to shareholder, dated October 17, 2024, in LASC Case No. 23STLC01807.

7. Transcript of Proceeding, dated October 17, 2024, in LASC Case No. 23STLC01807.

8. Minute Order requiring HOA to produce outstanding documents, dated January 10, 2025, in LASC Case No. 23STLC01807.

RJN Nos. 3-8: DENIED. Irrelevant. Case No. 23STLC01807 was deemed not related to this matter.

Plaintiff concurrently filed another request for judicial notice in support of his replies. Plaintiff seeks judicial notice of the Minute Order, dated February 11, 2025, issued in Case No. 24STCP02941 (RJN No. 10).

RJN No. 10: DENIED. Irrelevant. Case No. 23STCP02941 was deemed not related to this matter.

A demurrer to an answer may be appropriate if “[t]he answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense [or] [t]he answer is uncertain.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.20, subds. (a), (b).)

An affirmative defense is considered “new matter” beyond a general denial. (§ 431.30, subd. (b)(2).) The defendant bears the burden of proof to establish any new matters. (Harris v City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 239.) The answer must allege the facts on which the defense is founded. (See California Trust Co. v. Gustason (1940) 15 Cal.2d 268, 273.)

Ultimate facts are generally sufficient, rather than evidentiary matters or legal conclusions. (See Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550.) Even where a defense is defectively pled, it may be allowed if the Answer gives sufficient notice to enable the plaintiff to prepare to meet the defense, in part because un-pled defenses are waived. (See Harris v. City of Santa Monica, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 240.)

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.¿

The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a).) The court may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).) The grounds for a motion to strike are that the pleading has irrelevant, false or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)

Plaintiff argues all defenses, including Defendant’s affirmative defenses, are insufficiently pled and are devoid of factual specificity.

While there are few evidentiary facts alleged in Defendant’s Verified Answer, the cardinal rule of pleading is that only the ultimate facts need be alleged. (Semole v. Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 714, 719.) Furthermore, the “ ‘distinction between conclusions of law and ultimate facts is not at all clear and involves at most a matter of degree. [Citations.] For example, the courts have permitted allegations which obviously included conclusions of law and have termed them “ultimate facts” or “conclusions of fact.” ’ ” (Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6.)

Further, the sufficiency of an answer depends on the complaint to which it purports to answer. (South Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.Aaffrpp.2d 725, 733.) Therefore, the answer does not stand alone and is not unsupported by factual allegations as Plaintiff contends; rather it is read with reference to the facts alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff filed a forty-seven-page complaint replete with allegations and supported by Plaintiff’s declaration, which taken as true, support Defendant’s affirmative defenses. Defendants need not supplement their answer with further material.

Moreover, “if one of the defenses or counterclaims is free from the objections urged by demurrer, then a demurrer to the entire answer must be overruled.” (South Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 734.)

The court has reviewed the defenses and finds they fairly apprise Plaintiff of the alleged affirmative defenses. Plaintiff argues the defenses fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.[2] As pled, the defenses are sufficient to withstand demurrer. (See Khoury v. Maly’s of California Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616 [“A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.”].)¿ Any uncertainty as to the facts underlying Defendant’s affirmative defenses can be clarified in discovery; specifically, Plaintiff can propound Form Interrogatory 15.1 on Defendant for further details.[3]

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Demurrer is OVERRULED. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike is DENIED.

¿¿¿

¿ Kerry Bensinger¿¿

¿ Judge of the Superior Court¿

[1] Plaintiff seeks judicial notice of these same documents in support of his motion to strike.

[2] In his motion to strike, Plaintiff argues Defendant’s defenses are irrelevant. However, Plaintiff fails to point to the purportedly irrelevant material let alone explain how they are irrelevant.

[3] The court notes that throughout the demurrer and motion to strike, Plaintiff relies on facts that have not been pled. The court disregards Plaintiff’s reliance on extrinsic matter.