Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV01602, Date: 2023-11-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV01602    Hearing Date: January 11, 2024    Dept: C

ARROYO v. US VI DOWNEY, LLC

CASE NO.: 23NWCV01602

HEARING:  01/11/24

#4

     I.        Plaintiff’s Demurrer to Defendant STIX HOLDINGS, LLC’s First Amended Answer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. 

    II.        Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant STIX HOLDINGS, LLC’s First Amended Answer is DENIED.

Moving Party to give notice.

No Opposition filed as of January 8, 2024.  

This discrimination action was filed on May 25, 2023.

On August 8, 2023, Defendant STIX HOLDINGS, LLC (“Defendant”) filed the subject First Amended Answer (“FAA”) to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). In the FAA, Defendant asserts a general denial, and eighteen affirmative defenses.

Plaintiff now demurs to Defendant’s FAA and concurrently moves to strike the factual denials and admissions contained therein.

Demurrer

Plaintiff’s unopposed Demurrer to Defendant’s first through seventh affirmative defenses is SUSTAINED without leave to amend for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute an affirmative defense.

CCP §430.20(a) states that a demurrer to an Answer is properly sustained where, “[t]he answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.” Here, Defendant’s FAA consists of legal conclusions, devoid of factual support. No facts are alleged to support any Defendant’s first through seventh affirmative defenses. Rather, “the allegations are proffered in the form of terse legal conclusions, rather than as facts ‘averred as carefully and with as much detail as the facts which constitute the cause of action and are alleged in the complaint. [Cite.]” (FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 384.)

Defendant did not file an Opposition to the Demurrer. Therefore, the Court knows of no basis to grant leave to amend.  The demurrer to the first through seventh affirmative defenses is therefore SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

Motion to Strike

Plaintiff moves to strike Defendant’s factual denials and admissions.

A motion to strike lies either when (1) there is “irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading”; or (2) to strike any pleading or part thereof “not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule or order of court.” (CCP §436.)

“If the complaint is verified, unless the complaint is subject to Article 2…the denial of the allegations shall be made positively or according to the information and belief of the defendant…. (e) If the defendant has no information or belief upon the subject sufficient to enable him or her to answer an allegation of the complaint, he or she may so state in his or her answer and place his or her denial on that ground. (f) The denials of the allegations controverted may be stated by reference to specific paragraphs or parts of the complaint; or by express admission of certain allegations of the complaint with a general denial of all of the allegations not so admitted; or by denial of certain allegations upon information and belief, or for lack of sufficient information or belief, with a general denial of all allegations not so denied or expressly admitted.” (CCP §431.30(d)-(f).)

Contrary to the arguments raised in the subject Motion, there is no requirement for specificity when making denials in a verified Answer. Moreover, the remainder of the arguments raised in the subject Motion involve factual determinations improperly decided at this stage in the litigation.

The Motion to Strike Defendant’s factual denials and admissions is DENIED.