Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: BC674357, Date: 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: April 17, 2024

Case Name: Navarrete v. Manhattan Loft, LLC, et al.

Case No.: 23STCV19836 

Matter: Demurrer

Moving Party: Plaintiff Stephanie Navarrete 

Responding Party: Defendant FPI Management, Inc.

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Demurrer is overruled.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

On January 2, 2024, FPI Management, Inc. filed an Answer asserting 34 affirmative defenses.

Plaintiff Stephanie Navarrete now demurs to the Answer for uncertainty and failure to state sufficient facts.

When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context, and “treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.)  “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.”  (Hahn v. Mirda¿(2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)  It is error “to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if the plaintiff shows there is a reasonable possibility any defect identified by the defendant can be cured by amendment.”  (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist.¿(1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)

Here, the Answer’s affirmative defenses are pleaded in typical fashion, and any uncertainty can be resolved through discovery.  (Khoury v. Maly's of California Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)  The Demurrer is overruled.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.