Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV21699, Date: 2023-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21699    Hearing Date: April 10, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff Shahnaz Bahadori

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant Houman Vosoghi, M.D.

Demurrer to Amended Answer

The court considered the moving and opposition papers filed in connection with this demurrer.  No reply papers were filed.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Shahnaz Bahadori (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order sustaining her demurrer to the eighth and 14th affirmative defenses asserted by defendant Houman Vosoghi, M.D. (“Defendant”) in his Amended Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint.

The court sustains Plaintiff’s demurrer to Defendant’s eighth affirmative defense for statute of limitations because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense and is ambiguous and unintelligible and therefore uncertain since Defendant has asserted both that        (1) Plaintiff’s cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5 but (2) “it appears that [P]laintiff has filed the Complaint within the applicable statute of limitations, however, investigation and discovery are continuing.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.20, subds. (a), (b); Def. Amended Answer, p. 5, ¶ 8.)

The court sustains Plaintiff’s demurrer to Defendant’s 14th affirmative defense of judicial estoppel because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense and is ambiguous and unintelligible and therefore uncertain since Defendant has asserted both that (1) Plaintiff is barred from asserting any cause of action against him in this action pursuant to the doctrine of judicial estoppel and (2) “it does not appear that [P]laintiff is judicially estopped from bringing this action.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.20, subds. (a), (b); Def. Amended Answer, p. 8, ¶ 14.)

The burden is on Defendant “to articulate how it could amend its pleading to render it sufficient.”  (Palm Springs Villas II Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Parth (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 268, 290.)  The court finds that Defendant has not met his burden to show how he could amend his answer to render it sufficient to constitute defenses and to cure its uncertainty.  The court therefore sustains Plaintiff’s demurrer without leave to amend.

ORDER

            The court sustains plaintiff Shahnaz Bahadori’s demurrer to defendant Houman Vosoghi’s eighth and 14th affirmative defenses without leave to amend.

            The court orders plaintiff Shahnaz Bahadori to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  April 10, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court