Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 24CHCV02297, Date: 2024-11-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV02297    Hearing Date: November 18, 2024    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 11/18/24

Case #24CHCV02297

 

DEMURRER TO THE FIRST AMENDED ANSWER

 

Demurrer filed on 9/30/24.

 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Derek Jones

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Leticia M. Flores

NOTICE: ok

 

Demurrer is to the entire First Amended Answer:

            1.  Lawful Conduct

            2.  No Damages Suffered

            3.  Waiver

            4.  Good Faith

            5.  Privilege

            6.  Consent

            7.  Equity

            8.  Estoppel

            9.  Laches

            10. Reservation of Rights

 

RULING: The demurrer is overruled. 

 

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

This action arises out of the joint ownership by Plaintiff Derek Jones (Plaintiff) and Defendant Leticia M. Flores (Defendant) of real property located at 10261 Calvin Avenue, Northridge, California 91324-1114 (the Property).  The parties cannot agree on how to divide the Property.  Therefore, on 6/25/24, Plaintiff filed this action for partition.  On 8/26/24, Defendant answered the complaint and on 9/20/24 Defendant filed her First Amended Answer to the complaint. 

 

After meet and confer efforts failed to resolve the issues Plaintiff has with Defendant’s First Amended Answer, on 9/30/24, Plaintiff filed the subject demurrer to the entire First Amended Answer which asserts the following affirmative defenses: (1) Lawful Conduct, (2) No Damages Suffered, (3) Waiver, (4) Good Faith, (5) Privilege (6) Consent, (7) Equity, (8) Estoppel,

(9) Laches and (10) Reservation of Rights.  Defendant has opposed the demurrer and Plaintiff has filed a reply to the opposition. 

 

ANALYSIS

 

A party against whom an answer has been filed may object by demurrer based on the grounds that the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense and the answer is uncertain which includes the answer being ambiguous and unintelligible, among other grounds.  See CCP 430.20(a), (b).   

 

Pleadings are to be liberally construed with a view toward substantial justice between the parties. CCP 452.  The Court finds that Defendant’s First Amended Answer provides Plaintiff with sufficient notice so that Plaintiff may prepare his case and any defects in the First Amended Answer do not affect Plaintiff’s substantial rights.  See Harris (2013) 56 C4th 203, 239-240; FPI Development, Inc. (1991) 231 CA3d 367, 384-385.  Plaintiff has failed to establish that Defendant will be unable to rely on each of the Affirmative Defenses set forth in the First Amended Answer.  Any uncertainties regarding the affirmative defenses can be resolved through discovery.

 

With regard to the 10th Affirmative Defense which indicates that Defendant reserves her right to assert additional rights/defenses, Defendant must follow proper procedures for seeking leave to amend the First Amended Answer if she wishes to add additional affirmative defenses in the future.  

 

CONCLUSION

 

The demurrer is overruled.