Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 24STCV24543, Date: 2025-03-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV24543    Hearing Date: March 18, 2025    Dept: 40

24STCV24543 Nikita Kalustov, et al. v. E&S Ring Management Corporation

Tuesday, March 18, 2025

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER SUSTAINING PLAINTIFFS’ DEMURRER TO DEFENDANT’S ANSWER IN PART AND OVERRULING IN PART

 

                                                  I.          BACKGROUND

       The complaint alleges that Defendant is a landlord who conducted investigative consumer reports on each Plaintiff in conjunction with Plaintiffs’ application to rent an apartment in properties managed by Defendant. Defendant failed to allow a way to give Plaintiffs a means for indicating their desire to receive a copy of any report generated in violation of the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act and the statute governing failures to provide a receipt for tenant screening.

       Defendant answered the complaint on November 15, 2024.

                                                   II.         ARGUMENTS

       Plaintiffs demur to all affirmative defenses asserted in Defendant’s answer as they assert new matter but are not supported by any ultimate facts. Some are merely denials of facts alleged in Plaintiffs’ complaint and are not affirmative defenses.

       Plaintiffs served Defendant by electronic service. No opposition has been filed.

                                        III.        LEGAL STANDARDS

       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, 837–838.) 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. (Saunders 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 Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 385.)

       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.)

                                                         IV.        DISCUSSION

       A demurrer to an answer is limited to the following: failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense, uncertainty, and failure to allege whether a contract is written or oral. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.20.)  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.) The answer must be read in connection with the complaint, and the allegations must be liberally construed.  (Hoelzle v. Fresno County (1958) 159 Cal.App.2d 478, 483; FPI, supra at 384.) 

       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, 880.) The answer to a complaint must include any statement of any new 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.) “New matter” is “any ground urged in avoidance of the complaint, ie., some independent reason why plaintiff should be barred from recovery, even if everything alleged in the complaint was true.” (Walsh at 1546 [“Thus, where matters are not responsive to essential allegations of the complaint, they must be raised in the answer as 'new matter.' [Citation.] Where, however, the answer sets forth facts showing some essential allegation of the complaint is not true, such facts are not 'new matter,' but only a traverse.”].) In contrast, general denials place material allegations of the complaint at issue.

       New matter is not raised as an affirmative defense unless they are based on facts independent of the complaint that bar recovery.  The affirmative defenses that assert new matter must be supported by facts. (Department of Finance v. City of Merced (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 286, 294 ["Affirmative defenses must not be pled as ‘terse legal conclusions,’ but ‘rather ... as facts ‘averred as carefully and with as much detail as the facts which constitute the cause of action and are alleged in the complaint.” ’ [Citation.] ‘A party who fails to plead affirmative defenses waives them.’”].)

       The 2nd through 17th, and 19th affirmative defenses raise new matter without any allegations of ultimate fact. The 1st affirmative defense for failure to state a cause of action is not new matter as it challenges the allegations of the complaint. The 20th affirmative defense for reservation of rights is neither a general denial nor an affirmative defense.

                                                        V.         CONCLUSION

       Based on the foregoing, the demurrer to Defendant’s answer is SUSTAINED in part as to the 2nd through 17th, and 19th affirmative defenses. Leave to amend is ordinarily given if there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured. (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now v. Department of Industrial Relations (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 298, 302.) Accordingly, the court grants Defendant 30 days leave to file an amended answer.