Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 22NWCV00246, Date: 2022-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00246    Hearing Date: August 23, 2022    Dept: SEC

KULS LLC v. YSN IMPORTS, INC.

CASE NO.:  22NWCV00246

HEARING:  8/23/22 @ 10:30 AM

JUDGE:  OLIVIA ROSALES

#4

TENTATIVE RULING

Cross-Complainant YSN Imports, LLC’s demurrer is OVERRULED as to uncertainty, and as to the 1^st – 7^th, and 9^th – 19^th affirmative defenses, and SUSTAINED with 10 days leave to amend as to the 8^th affirmative defense.

Opposing Party to give NOTICE.

Cross-Complainant YSN Imports, LLC demurs to the Cross-Defendant’s Answer on the grounds that they fail to state facts sufficient to constitute an affirmative defense and are uncertain.

Plaintiff Kuls LLC initiated this action on April 1, 2022, for common counts damages of $57,408.05.  The Complaint asserts causes of action for:

1.    Goods and/or Services Rendered

2.    Open Book Account

3.    Account Stated

On May 24, 2022, YSN Imports, LLC cross-complained for:

1.    Breach of Contract

2.    Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

UNCERTAINTY

Demurrer on grounds of uncertainty will not be sustained unless the complaint is so bad that the defendant cannot reasonably respond.  (Koury v. Maly’s of California (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)

The court finds the Answer is not so uncertain that Cross-Complainant cannot reasonably understand the defenses asserted.  Demurrer on ground of uncertainty is OVERRULED.

FAILURE TO STATE FACTS SUFFICIENT

Cross-Complainant has demurred to all 19 defenses in the Answer.

Under CCP § 430.20, a party against whom an answer has been filed may demur to the answer when it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense or when it is uncertain.  (CCP § 430.20(a).)  California law requires an answer to plead facts with as much detail was required for a cause of action. (See FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 384.) However, some vagueness may exist in a defendant’s answer because most defendants do not have the ability to prove their defenses at the initial answering phase, which usually occurs before discovery.  Additionally, a defendant has a significant incentive to plead every affirmative defense because a party waives defenses that are not pled.  As a result, even where a defense is defectively pled, it may be allowed if the defendant’s pleading gives sufficient notice to enable the plaintiff to prepare to meet the defense, in part because unpled defenses are waived. (See Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 240.) Furthermore, it is settled law in California that a defendant may plead as many inconsistent defenses in an answer as he or she may desire and that such defenses may not be considered as admissions against interest in the action in which the answer was filed. (Id. at 240-41.)  

Cross-Defendant requests leave to amend to plead the specific statute of limitations relied upon.  Accordingly, the demurrer to the 8^th affirmative defense is SUSTAINED with 10 days leave to amend.

The court finds that the remaining defenses are adequately pled and gives Cross-Complainant notice of the defenses asserted.  Cross-Complainant may conduct discovery to ascertain the facts supporting each defense.

Accordingly, the demurrer to the 1^st – 7^th, and 9^th – 19^th affirmative defenses is OVERRULED.