Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 24CHCV02000, Date: 2024-09-16 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 24CHCV02000    Hearing Date: September 16, 2024    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 9/16/24

Case #24CHCV02000

DEMURRER TO ORIGINAL ANSWER

Demurrer filed on 8/13/24.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Pilar Alonso and MPA 123 LLC

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Besian Shaquiri

NOTICE: ok

Demurrer is to the 1^st – 47^th (all) Affirmative Defenses in Defendant Besian Shaquiri’s Answer to the Complaint. 

RULING: The demurrer is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. 

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of the lease of residence in Santa Clarita, California by Defendant Besian Shaquiri (Defendant) from Plaintiff MPA 123 LLC (MPA) beginning on or about 3/15/18.  Plaintiff Pilar Alonso (Alonso), who is currently 81 years old, is alleged to be the sole owner, member and employee of MPA.

Plaintiffs allege that shortly after Defendant moved into the residence he began to make complaints about the condition of the residence.  Plaintiffs allege that Defendant claimed he was a licensed contractor, insisted on making repairs, which Plaintiffs claims were unnecessary, himself and intimidated Alonso into allowing him to do so or did not obtain permission to make certain repairs/alterations.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant demanded payment for the repairs and/or rent offsets.  Plaintiff also contends that Defendant refused to comply with rent increases imposed over the years of his tenancy.    

On 5/29/24, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendant for: (1) Business & Professions Code 7031, (2) Fraud/Intentional Misrepresentation, (3) Negligent Misrepresentation, (4) Breach of Written Contract, (5) Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, (6) Waste, (7) Civil Extortion and (8) Financial Elder Abuse.  On 7/16/24, Defendant filed and served an Answer to the Complaint which asserts the following 47 Affirmative Defenses: (1) Failure to State a Claim, (2) Unclean Hands, (3) Waiver, (4) Equitable Estoppel, (5) Failure to Mitigate, (6) Lack of Standing, (7) Ratification and Waiver, (8) Third Party Causation, (9) Mutual or Unilateral Mistake, (10) No Claim for Negligent Misrepresentation, (11) Speculative Damages, (12) Materiality, (13) Preventative/Corrective Opportunities, (14) Third Party Conduct, (15) Intervening Acts,

(16) Allocation of Fault, (17) Accord and  Satisfaction, (18) Performance Excused, (19) Full or Partial Performance, (20) Economic Loss, (21) Laches, (22) Statute of Limitations, (23) Avoidable Consequences, (24) Failure to Exhaust Remedies, (25) Privilege, (26) Assumption of Risk, (27) Doe Defendants, (28) Off-Set, (29) Sums Already Paid, (30) Res-Judicata/Equitable Estoppel, (31) Damages Caused by Plaintiff, (32) Contributory/Comparative Fault, (33) Acts or Omissions of Others, (34) Reasonable Conduct, (35) Unconscionable Contract, (36) Non-Negotiated Terms and/or Conditions, (37) No Claim for Fraud/Intentional Misrepresentation, (38) Adhesion, (39) Ripeness, (40) Impossibility, Impracticality and/or Frustration of Purpose, (41) Inducement, (42) Lack of Justifiable Controversy, (43) Lawful Conduct, (44) Good Faith, (45) Reasonable and/or Exigent Circumstances, (46) Failure and/or Lack of Consideration and (47) Reliance on Advice of Counsel. 

Defendant was served with the Complaint on 6/22/24.  On 7/16/24, Defendant filed (electronically served on 7/15/24) the Answer to the Complaint.  After Defendant’s counsel failed to respond to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s meet and confer efforts regarding the issues Plaintiffs had with the Answer, on 8/13/24, Plaintiff filed and served the instant demurrer to each of the 47 affirmative defenses asserted in Defendant’s Answer to the complaint.  (See Frank Decl. and Declaration Re Automatic Extension.  Defendant has not opposed or otherwise responded to the demurrer.

ANALYSIS

A demurrer may be based on the grounds that the answer fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense and/or is uncertain.  CCP 430.20(a), (b). 

Affirmative defenses cannot merely set forth legal conclusions but must set forth supporting facts with as much detail as required in a complaint.  See FPI Development, Inc. (1991) 231 CA3d 367, 384.  Mere legal conclusions are inadequate to state a valid affirmative defense.  See Houk (1943) 58 CA2d 573, 582; City of Mountain View (1975) 54 CA3d 72, 84.

Defendant has failed to set forth sufficient facts to support the numerous affirmative defenses asserted in the Answer which also renders the affirmative defenses uncertain. 

CONCLUSION

The demurrer is sustained.  Due to the liberal policy of allowing leave to amend and because this is the original answer, Defendant is given the opportunity to try to cure the defects in his affirmative defenses.

A First Amended Answer is due within 20 days. 

The Court notes that the exhibits attached to the demurrer are not properly electronically bookmarked as the bookmarks are not clearly labeled and/or linked to each exhibit.  See CRC 3.1110(f)(4).  Counsel for the parties are warned that failure to follow this rule in the future may result in matters being continued so that papers can be resubmitted in compliance with the rule, papers not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.