Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 24STCV01748, Date: 2024-06-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV01748    Hearing Date: June 12, 2024    Dept: 61

HANMI BANK, A CALIFORNIA STATE CHARTERED BANK vs OVERSEAS FOOD DISTRIBUTION, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al.

TENTATIVE   

Plaintiff Hanmi Bank’s Demurrer to the Answer of Defendants Overseas Food Distribution, LLC and Shahpour Javidizad is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

Plaintiff to provide notice.


DISCUSSION     

A demurrer should be sustained only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Code Civ. Pro., §§ 430.30, et seq.) In particular, as is relevant here, a court should sustain a demurrer if a complaint does not allege facts that are legally sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (See id. § 430.10, subd. (e).) As the Supreme Court held in Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311: “We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. . . . Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.” (Id. at p. 318; see also Hahn. v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747 [“A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the

Wednesday, June 12, 2024

defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. [Citation.]”)

“In determining whether the complaint is sufficient as against the demurrer … if on consideration of all the facts stated it appears the plaintiff is entitled to any relief at the hands of the court against the defendants the complaint will be held good although the facts may not be clearly stated.” (Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 639.)

“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.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of Cal., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Such demurrers “are disfavored, and are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (Mahan v. Charles W. Chan Insurance Agency, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 841, 848.)

A demurrer should not be sustained without leave to amend if the complaint, liberally construed, can state a cause of action under any theory or if there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured by amendment. (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 1081.) The demurrer also may be sustained without leave to amend where the nature of the defects and previous unsuccessful attempts to plead render it probable plaintiff cannot state a cause of action. (Krawitz v. Rusch (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 957, 967.)

Plaintiff Hanmi Bank (Plaintiff) demurrers to the answer of Defendants Overseas Food Distributors, LLC and Shahpour Javidizad (Defendants) to the First Amended Complaint (FAC) on the grounds that the affirmative defenses stated therein are not supported by factual allegations. (Demurrer at pp. 7–10.)

An answer’s affirmative defenses must “be separately stated, and the several defenses shall refer to the causes of action which they are intended to answer, in a manner by which they may be intelligibly distinguished.” (CCP § 431.30, subd. (g).) “Affirmative relief may not be claimed in the answer.” (CCP § 431.30, subd. (c).)

Affirmative defenses which are bare legal conclusions will not survive a demurrer. (FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 383–384.) However, “[t]here is no need to require specificity in the pleadings because modern discovery procedures necessarily affect the amount of detail that should be required in a pleading.” (Doheny Park Terrace Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Truck ins. Exchange (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1099, internal quotation marks omitted.) An affirmative defense is pleaded with “‘sufficient particularity’” if the pleadings, read in light of the case at hand, give notice to the plaintiff “of a potentially meritorious defense.” (Hata v. Los Angeles County Harbor/UCLA Medical Center (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1791, 1804.)

The ten affirmative defenses offered in Defendants’ answer consist of “bare legal conclusions,” with little more detail than the invocation of the specific legal doctrine relied upon to label the defense. They are therefore insufficiently pleaded. Defendants have filed no opposition to this demurrer.

The demurrer is therefore SUSTAINED with leave to amend.