Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case Number: 23PSCV03549, Date: 2024-08-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV03549, Date: 2024-08-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV03549 Hearing Date: August 20, 2024 Dept: G

Plaintiff Yadira Karla Lomeli’s Demurrer to Defendant Estate of Luella Mae Taylor

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Yadira Karla Lomeli’s Demurrer to Defendant Estate of Luella Mae Taylor is SUSTAINED with ten (10) days leave to amend.

On the court’s own motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 436, the court GRANTS a motion to strike Defendant Estate of Luella Mae Taylor’s First Amended Answer filed August 9, 2024, as untimely and improperly filed.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision. In December 2021, Plaintiff Yadira Karla Lomeli was driving westbound on Gale Avenue in the City of Industry when Lomeli’s vehicle was hit by a vehicle driven by Defendant Luella Mae Taylor.

On November 15, 2023, Lomeli filed a complaint against Taylor and Does 1-20, alleging causes of action for (1) motor vehicle negligence and (2) negligence.

On December 5, 2023, Lomeli amended the complaint to replace Doe 1 with Defendant Estate of Luella Mae Taylor (the Taylor Estate).

On July 12, 2024, the Taylor Estate filed an answer.

On July 24, 2024, Lomeli filed the present demurrer. Prior to filing on July 18, 2024, Lomeli’s counsel telephonically met and conferred with the Taylor Estate’s counsel. (Capers Decl., ¶ 4.)

On August 9, 2024, the Taylor Estate filed a First Amended Answer.

A hearing on the demurrer is set for August 20, 2024, along with a case management conference.

ANALYSIS

Lomeli demurs to all affirmative defenses raised in the Taylor Estate’s Answer. For the following reasons, the court SUSTAINS Lomeli’s demurrer.

Legal Standard

An answer to a complaint must include “[t]he general or specific denial of the material allegations of the complaint controverted by the defendant” and “[a] statement of any new matter constituting a defense.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.30, subd. (b).) The same pleading of ultimate facts rather than mere legal conclusions required in a complaint is also required in pleading an answer. (FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashimi (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 384.) Defenses must be separately stated and refer to the causes of action they answer to. (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.30, subd. (g).)

A plaintiff can demur to an answer on the ground that “[t]he answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.20, subd. (a).) “Generally speaking, the determination whether an answer states a defense is governed by the same principles which are applicable in determining if a complaint states a cause of action.” (South Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal. App. 2d 725, 732.) “The determination of the sufficiency of the answer requires an examination of the complaint because its adequacy is with reference to the complaint it purports to answer.” (Id., at p. 733.)

Discussion

In this case, Lomeli argues each of the Taylor Estate’s twenty-seven affirmative defenses are insufficiently pled as they fail to allege any supporting facts. In response, the Taylor Estate has failed to file an opposition. Furthermore, it appears the Taylor Estate admits the demurrer has merit as the Taylor Estate’s counsel agreed to file an amended answer and did so, albeit in an untimely manner. (Capers Decl., ¶ 4.)

Accordingly, Lomeli’s demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Lomeli’s demurrer to the Taylor Estate’s Answer is SUSTAINED with ten (10) days leave to amend.

Furthermore, on the court’s own motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 436, the court GRANTS a motion to strike the Taylor Estate’s First Amended Answer. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 472, subdivision (a), plaintiff may only amend a pleading once without leave of the court “after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed but before the demurrer or motion to strike is heard if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike.” If a party seeks to amend the pleading after the deadline to file an opposition has passed, parties must stipulate to the filing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 472, subd. (a).)

Here, the deadline to file an opposition to Lomeli’s demurrer was August 7, 2024, nine (9) court days before the hearing on August 20, 2024. Because the Taylor Estate did not file the First Amended Answer until August 9, 2024, it was untimely and improperly filed.