Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV02188, Date: 2024-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV02188, Date: 2024-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV02188 Hearing Date: February 14, 2024 Dept: C

SHIPP v. MR. CS TOWING OF SOUTH GATE, INC.

CASE NO.: 23NWCV02188

HEARING: 2/14/24 @ 9:30 AM

#Add-On

Plaintiff’s Demurrer to Defendant City of Hawthorne’s Answer is OVERRULED.

Opposing to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Michael Shipp (Plaintiff) demurs to Defendant City of Hawthorne’s Answer to his Complaint.

Background

This discrimination action was filed on July 14, 2023. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant City of Hawthorne (Defendant) lacked probable cause to arrest Plaintiff for a violation of the Vehicle Code §10851(A). The Complaint asserts the following causes of action:

(1) Violation of Civil Rights for Unlawful Seizure and Arrest;

(2) Violation of Civil Rights: Entity Liability;

(3) False Arrest/False Imprisonment in Violation of Penal Code §236;

(4) Negligence; and

(5) Government Code Violation.

On August 23, 2023 Defendant filed the subject Answer (“Answer”) to Plaintiff’s Complaint. In its Answer, Defendant asserts a general denial, and ten affirmative defenses. Plaintiff now demurs to Defendant’s First through Thirty-Fifth Affirmative Defenses, arguing that Defendant’s affirmative defenses are no more than legal theories or conclusions of law.

Legal Standard

A demurrer to an answer is properly sustained where “[t]he answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.” (CCP §430.20(a).) However, it is well-settled that an answer alleging affirmative defenses need only plead ultimate facts (e.g. Welch v. Derian (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 750, 754) and there is a fine line between ultimate facts and mere conclusions of law. (See, e.g., Bank of Italy v. Wetzel (1927) 82 Cal.App.240, 243.) Moreover, the sufficiency of an answer is considered in the context of the allegations of the complaint. (South Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 733.)

Discussion

Here, the court determines that the Defendant’s affirmative defenses are sufficient when considered in the context of the allegations in the Complaint. Moreover, there is no prejudice to these affirmative defenses since any residual uncertainty in the pleading can be resolved through discovery. Plaintiff may seek further factual information related to each affirmative defense through discovery. The demurrer is OVERRULED as to the First through Thirty-Fifth affirmative defenses.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Demurrer is OVERRULED as to all affirmative defenses.