Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 24STCV13478, Date: 2024-09-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 24STCV13478, Date: 2024-09-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV13478 Hearing Date: September 16, 2024 Dept: 61

MISAEL GUERRERO HERNANDEZ , AN INDIVIDUAL, et al. vs EDUARDO MENCOS CARBAJAL, AN INDIVIDUAL, et al.

TENTATIVE

Plaintiffs Misael Guerrero Hernandez and Leticia Aguilar’s Demurrer to Defendants Eduardo Mencos Carbajal and PMJ Trucking, Inc.’s Answer is OVERRULED.

Defendants 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) 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 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.)

Plaintiffs Misael Guerrero Hernandez and Leticia Aguilar (Plaintiffs) demurrer to the answer of Defendants Eduardo Mencos Carbajal and PMJ Trucking, Inc. (Defendants) on the grounds that the ten affirmative defenses stated therein are pleaded with insufficient specificity. (Demurrer at pp. 4–6.)

Affirmative defenses which are “terse legal conclusions” are demurrable. (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 defenses here are adequately stated in light of the case at hand. Plaintiffs plead a factually concise claim for motor vehicle negligence, and Defendants’ defenses are adequate to provide notice to Plaintiffs and allow them to prepare discovery accordingly. Although the demurrer is framed as an argument from uncertainty, “[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.” (A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 695.) Demurrers to answers are indeed “very rare, probably because they are not worth the cost when the same result can be achieved by serving requests for admission or standard form interrogatories seeking the bases for the affirmative defenses.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide; Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2023) Ch. 7(I)-A, Demurrers, [¶] 7:35:1) The answer here gives Plaintiffs notice of a potentially meritorious defense.

The demurrer is therefore OVERRULED.