Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22STCV08190, Date: 2022-08-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV08190 Hearing Date: August 4, 2022 Dept: A
22STCV08190
Courtney Gregory, Brian Gregory v. KIPP Foundation, KIPP SoCal Public Schools
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
I.
BACKGROUND
The complaint, filed on March 7,
2022, alleges that Defendant, KIPP SoCal Public Schools (“KIPP) employed Plaintiff,
Courtney Gregory, as a teacher at KIPP Ignite Academy. Defendant KIPP
Foundation (“Foundation”) allegedly trains and develops its educators to lead
its branded schools. Plaintiff allegedly suffered injury after a student
attacked her with a chair. Plaintiffs allege claims for fraudulent concealment,
negligent hiring and supervision, intentional infliction of emotional distress,
negligent infliction of emotional distress and negligent misrepresentation.
Plaintiff, Brian Gregory, asserts a claim for loss of consortium.
As the demurrers and motions to
strike raise identical issues, the court address both demurrers and motions to
strike in one tentative ruling.
II.
DEMURRERS TO DEFENDANTS’ ANSWERS AND MOTIONS TO STRIKE
A.
Demurrer and Motion to Strike KIPP’s answer filed on April 29,
2022. Demurrer and Motion to Strike Foundation’s answer filed May 2, 2022.
Plaintiffs argue that both
Defendants’ answers do not state sufficient facts to constitute a defense. Plaintiffs
move to strike both answers on grounds the answers contain irrelevant, false,
or improper matter, and is unsupported by any facts to prove the viability of
the asserted defenses.
B.
Oppositions filed May 5, 2022
Both Defendants argue that
Plaintiffs’ complaint is vague and fails to state causes of action. Plaintiffs are
improperly attempting to prove up their case against Defendants at the pleading
stage. Plaintiffs’ demurrer includes new allegations that are not in the
complaint and cannot be considered by the court. Defendants argue that the
defenses are well pled. If the court is inclined to sustain demurrer,
Defendants ask for leave to amend. Defendants also object to Plaintiffs’
evidence as Plaintiffs lack foundation for the statements made, which are also
hearsay, irrelevant and improper legal conclusions.
C.
Replies filed June 6, 2022
Plaintiffs reiterate that the
Answers’ lack of alleged facts do not raise “new matter.” The conclusory and
boilerplate affirmative defenses are insufficient. Plaintiffs argue that the
motion to strike should be granted since Defendants are using this motion as an
opportunity to contest the allegations in the complaint.
III.
LEGAL STANDARDS
A.
Demurrer
A demurrer reaches defects that
appear on the face of the pleading. The court considers the allegations and
matters that are subject to judicial notice. All facts are accepted as true. Saunders
v. Superior Court (1994) 27 Cal. App. 4th 832, 838. A demurrer tests the
legal sufficiency of the allegations. It does not test their truth, the
plaintiff’s ability to prove them, or the possible difficulty in making such
proof. Id. at 840.
The sufficiency of an answer
depends on the complaint to which it purports to answer. South Shore Land
Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 733. Therefore, the answer does
not stand alone; rather it is read with reference to the facts alleged in plaintiff’s
complaint. The pleading must “minimally advise the opposing party of the nature
of the defense even if defective as conclusory.” FPI at 385. Specificity
in pleading is not required since “modern discovery procedures necessarily
affect the amount of detail that should be required in a pleading.” Ludgate
Ins. Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 592, 608.
Unlike federal courts, California
state courts are not a notice pleading jurisdiction, and notice alone is not a
sufficient basis for any pleading. California is a fact pleading jurisdiction.
Merely putting an opposing party on notice is not sufficient. Bach v. County
of Butte (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 554, 561; see Diodes, Inc. v. Franzen
(1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 244, 250.
The critical inquiry when a
plaintiff demurs to an answer is whether the answer raises a defense to
plaintiff’s stated cause of action. Timberidge Enterprises, Inc. v. City of
Santa Rosa (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 873, 879-880. The demurrer raises the
objection that the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a
defense. Id. at 880. The answer to a complaint must include any
statement of any matter constituting a defense. Code Civ. Proc., § 431.430(b)(2).
“New matter” refers to
“something relied on by a defendant which is not put in issue by the plaintiff.
[Citation.] Thus, where matters are not responsive to essential allegations of
the complaint, they must be raised in the answer as ‘new matter.’ Walsh v.
West Valley Mission Community College Dist. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1532,
1546. Thus, “new matter” is “any ground urged in avoidance of the complaint, i.e..,
some independent reason why plaintiff should be barred from recovery, even if
everything alleged in the complaint was true.” Id. [“all facts which do
not thus directly tend to disprove some one or more of these averments, but
tend to establish a defense independently of them, cannot be offered under the
denial; they are new matter, and must be specially pleaded.”].
The answer is liberally
construed with a view to substantial justice between the parties. The answer
should make clear what issues the adverse parties must meet such that when
taken in connection with the complaint, “no reasonable person could be in any
doubt about the issues to be met.” Hoelzle v. Fresno County (1958) 159
Cal.App.2d 478, 483. FPI, supra at 384.
B.
Motion to Strike
Grounds for a motion
to strike are limited to matters that appear on the face of the pleading or on
any matter which the court shall or may take judicial notice. Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 437. The court can strike out “any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted
in any pleading or “any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity
with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” Cal Code
Civ Procedure § 436.
IV.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs have complied with the
requirement to meet and confer prior to the hearing on demurrer and motion to
strike. The parties were unable to resolve the issues. Declaration of Brian
Gregory, ¶¶ 3-6. Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, § 439. The court grants Plaintiffs’
request for judicial notice of the Los Angeles Unified School District Board’s
approval of Defendants’ charter petition. Code Civ. Proc., § 451(c).
The court sustains Defendants’
evidentiary objections to the Plaintiffs’ respective declarations as they lack
foundation and constitute hearsay. The declarations are also improper to
consider at the demurrer stage. The statements go to the merits of Plaintiffs’
substantive claims, which is not grounds for demurrer or motion to strike.
Plaintiffs take issue with
Defendants’ lack of “credible or legible measure of information, facts, or
circumstances to support any viable defense whatsoever, … .” Demurrer to KIPP, 6:20-24;
Demurrer to Foundation 8:20-28. However, a pleading is required to assert
general allegations of ultimate fact. Evidentiary facts are not required. Quelimane
Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal. 4th 26, 47; Lim v.
The.TV Corp. Internat. (2002) 99 Cal. App. 4th 684, 690; Careau &
Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal. App. 3d 1371,
1390 [“It is both improper and insufficient for a [pleader] to simply plead the
evidence by which he hopes to prove such ultimate facts.”]. As previously
stated, the court is not concerned with whether Defendants can prove the
affirmative defenses.
By the same token, Plaintiffs’
assertion of extrinsic facts raised in the demurrer that go to the substantive
merits of their claims are improper and are not considered by the court.
Demurrer to KIPP, 7:11-17; Demurrer to Foundation, 9:20-27. At the pleading
stage, Defendants are not required to “show” that their defenses are viable;
only that they are well stated. Plaintiffs essentially argue that certain
extrinsic facts negate the affirmative defenses. That is an issue to be
determined by way of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication. Code Civ.
Proc., § 437c. It is improper at the pleading stage.
Defendants’ affirmative defenses
adequately state ultimate facts. To the extent Plaintiffs require specific
evidentiary facts, this is properly addressed through discovery, not pleading. Demurrers
for uncertainty are strictly construed “even where a complaint [pleading] is in
some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern
discovery procedures.” Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14
Cal. App. 4th 612, 616.
For the same reasons, Plaintiffs’ motions
to strike each Defendant’s first to nineteenth affirmative defenses are without
merit.
V.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing,
Plaintiffs’ demurrers, and motions to strike the answers of Defendants,
Foundation and KIPP are OVERRULED and DENIED respectively.