Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV01707, Date: 2023-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV01707    Hearing Date: December 7, 2023    Dept: C

BEATRIZ CAMARILLO vs SUNRUN, INC., et al.

CASE NO.:  23NWCV01707

HEARING:  12/7/23

#7

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff’s unopposed demurrer to Defendant’s answer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Procedural History

On June 5, 2023, Plaintiff Beatriz Camarillo filed an action against Defendants Sunrun, Inc. and Hartman Home Transformation alleging causes of action for (1) Constructive Fraud; (2) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; (3) Statute of Frauds Violation; (4) Breach of Contract; (5) Inducement of Breach; (6) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; (7) Civil Reckless Abuse of Process; (8) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (9) Civil Extortion; (10) Professional Negligence; (11) Cal Civ Code section 3425.3 Violation; (12) Wrongful Use of Administrative Process; (13) Abuse of Process; (14) Discrimination; and (15) Defamation. Plaintiff also seeks injunctive and declaratory relief.

On October 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant demurrer to Defendant Sunrun’s unverified answer. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Meet and Confer

Plaintiff provides a declaration wherein she claims that various meet and confer sessions have been proposed and transmitted to Defendants for this demurrer motion against their Answer in accordance with CCP 430.41 (a) and had been continually communicated and mentioned to the defendants by the plaintiff. (Camarillo Decl. ¶ 22.) The Court finds this to be sufficient.

Merits

Plaintiff demurs to all of Defendant’s answers for all of Plaintiff’s causes of action. Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s answers fail to state facts constituting a valid answer and that the pleading is uncertain. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that (1) the answer fails to contain a general or specific denial of the material allegations of the complaint; (2) fails to make a statement of any new matter constituting a defense; (3) improperly asserts affirmative relief; (4) did not deny the allegations positively or according to belief; (5) did not state that it had no information or belief upon the subject sufficient to enable him or her to answer an allegation of the complaint; (6) did not make denials by referencing specific paragraphs or parts of complaint, expressly admitting certain allegations with general denial, denying certain allegations upon information and belief, or for lack of sufficient information or belief; and (7) failed to separately state defenses, referring to causes of action which they are intended to answer.

Plaintiff requests that Defendant’s entire answer should be dismissed as if no answers were submitted and thereby subject to default judgment.

The Court finds Plaintiff’s arguments to have merit. Further, Defendant fails to provide any opposition. Thus, the Court SUSTAINS the answer WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. The Court declines to grant Plaintiff’s request to dismiss the answer in the entirety. The Court notes that a motion to strike is the proper mechanism.