Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV01576, Date: 2023-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV01576    Hearing Date: October 24, 2023    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 10/24/23

Case #23CHCV01576

DEMURRER TO THE ORIGINAL ANSWER

Demurrer filed on 8/22/23.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Hillary Nicole Duran and Raffi Khodagulyan

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Rick Mayelian

NOTICE: ok

Demurrer is to the entire Answer and each of the 48 affirmative defenses asserted therein. 

RULING: The demurrer is overruled. 

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of a landlord-tenant dispute.  Plaintiffs Hillary Nicole Duran and Raffi Khodagulyan (Plaintiffs), representing themselves, allege that Defendant Rick Mayelian (Defendant), at all relevant times, was an owner and manager of the real property located at 24107 Del Monte Drive, Unit 27, Valencia, California 91355 which Plaintiffs were/are renting.  (Complaint ¶¶2, 6).  Plaintiffs allege that they fell behind in rent due to COVID-19 and gave notice of same to Defendant.  (Id. ¶6).  Plaintiffs allege their rent was improperly increased while COVID-19 protections were in place and that they were improperly served with a 3 Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit.  (Id. ¶¶8-10). 

On 5/31/23, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendant for: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, (3) Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment of the Premises, (4) Trespass, (5) Nuisance (Civil Code 3479), (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, (7) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, (8) Negligence, (9) Wrongful Eviction (Civil Code 789.3), (10) Constructive Eviction and (11) Conversion.  On 8/16/23, Defendant filed his answer to the complaint asserting 48 affirmative defenses. 

On 8/22/23, Plaintiffs filed a form declaration, signed by Hillary Nicole Duran, only, indicating that they met and conferred with Defendant by telephone and were unable resolve the issues they have with Defendant’s answer.  On 8/22/23, Plaintiffs filed and served the instant demurrer to the answer.  Defendant has opposed the demurrer.        

ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs have demurred to each of the 48 affirmative defenses in Defendant’s answer on the ground that they fail to allege sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action and they are uncertain because they do not include factual support.  CCP 430.20(a), (b).

The main function of a pleading is to give the other party notice so that it may prepare its case.  Harris (2013) 56 C4th 203, 240.  A defect in a pleading that otherwise properly puts the other party on notice does not affect that party’s substantial rights and is not subject to demurrer.  Id.   Citation to a statute in an affirmative defense is sufficient to put a plaintiff on notice of a defense.  Hata (1995) 31 CA4th 1791, 1805-1806 (disapproved on other grounds in Quigley (2019) 7 C5th 798, 815, fn. 8).

An affirmative defense must only comply with general notice pleading requirements and must be liberally construed.  Jessen (2008) 158 CA4th 1480, 1483 fn.3; CCP 452.  When ruling on a demurrer to an answer, the Court must also examine the complaint because the sufficiency of the answer depends, in part, on the complaint to which it responds.  See South Shore Land Co. (1964) 226 CA2d 725, 733.

The Court finds that when Defendant’s affirmative defenses are liberally construed and considered with the allegations in the complaint, they are sufficient to put Plaintiffs on notice of each defense alleged.  Plaintiffs have failed to establish that Defendant will be unable to rely on each of the affirmative defenses set forth in the answer.  Any uncertainties regarding the affirmative defenses can be resolved through discovery.

CONCLUSION

The demurrer is overruled.