Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV29004, Date: 2025-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV29004    Hearing Date: February 27, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: February 27, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Demurrer to Answer to Complaint

Moving Party: Plaintiff Victorio M. Castillo

Responding Party: Defendant City of Los Angeles

T/R:     PLAINTIFF’S DEMURRER TO DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES’ ANSWER IS OVERRULED.

PLAINTIFF TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition and reply.

BACKGROUND

On November 5, 2024, Plaintiff Victorio M. Castillo sued Defendants Adell Michael Hodge, City of Los Angeles, and Los Angeles Police Department, asserting causes of action for (1) negligence; (2) vicarious liability; (3) violation of Vehicle Code 17001; and (4) negligence. Plaintiff alleges he suffered personal injury in a motor vehicle accident in which the other car was driven by Defendant Hodge.

ANALYSIS

“Generally speaking, the determination whether an answer states a defense is governed by the same principles which are applicable in determining if a complaint states a cause of action.” (South Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 732.) However, some vagueness may exist in a defendant’s answer because most defendants do not have the ability to prove their defenses at the initial answering phase, which usually occurs before discovery. In addition, a defendant has a significant incentive to plead every affirmative defense because a party waives defenses that are not pleaded. As a result, even where a defense is defectively pled, it may be allowed if the defendant’s pleading gives sufficient notice to enable the plaintiff to prepare to meet the defense, in part because un-pled defenses are waived. (Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal. 4th 203, 240.) Further, it is settled law in California that a defendant may plead as many inconsistent defenses in an answer as her or she may desire and that such defenses may not be considered as admissions against interest in the action in which the answer was filed.  (Id. at 241.) 

Plaintiff assert that Defendant City has failed to state sufficient facts to support the third through ninth affirmative defenses. The Court disagrees. Defendant’s answer provides a clear list of affirmative defenses and alleges ultimate facts. The demurrer to the answer is OVERRULED.