Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV12475, Date: 2023-10-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV12475 Hearing Date: October 10, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s Demurrer to the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth,
Sixth, and Seventh Affirmative Defenses in the Answer are OVERRULED.
Plaintiff’s Demurrer to the Eighth and Nine Affirmative
Defenses in the Answer are SUSTAINED with leave to amend.
Background
According to the Complaint, this case arises out of an
accident on October 25, 2021, that occurred near the intersection of Virgil and
Melrose in Los Angeles, California. (Complaint,
¶¶ 1, 6.) Plaintiff Roscelia Pineda (“Plaintiff”)
alleges that she was lawfully crossing the street in the crosswalk as a
pedestrian when she was struck by the vehicle operated by Defendant Caroline
Phillips (“Defendant”). (Ibid.) Plaintiff filed her Complaint on June 1,
2023, asserting a single cause of action for negligence against Defendant and
Does 1 through 50.
On August 31, 2023, Defendant filed an Answer consisting of a
general denial and nine affirmative defenses.
On September 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Demurrer to the
Answer. Defendant filed an opposition on
September 26, and Plaintiff filed a reply on October 6.
Legal Standards
Demurrers to answers, although rare, are authorized by Code of
Civil Procedure section 430.20. As to
eight of the nine affirmative defenses, Defendant demurs on the grounds that
they fail to state facts to support the defense and that they are
uncertain. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.20,
subds. (a) & (b).)
In ruling on demurrers, courts read the
allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept.
of Water and Power (2006) 144
Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.) The court “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all
material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions
of fact or law ….” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152
Cal.App.4th 518, 525).) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must appear on
the face of the pleadings or through judicially noticeable facts. (Donabedian
v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116
Cal.App.4th 968, 994).)
Demurrers for uncertainty are “disfavored” and will be
sustained “only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a [demurring party]
cannot reasonably respond.” (A.J.
Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 695.) A pleading need not be “a model of clarity” and
must only contain sufficient allegations to put the other party on notice of
the claims or defendants that are at issue in the case. (See id.) As the Court of Appeal has observed in the
context of a demurrer to a complaint, “where a complaint is in some respects
uncertain, … ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery
procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of
Cal., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)
In addition, a “demurrer for uncertainty should be overruled when the
facts … are presumptively with the [demurring party’s] knowledge.” (Chen v. Berenjian (2019) 33
Cal.App.5th 811, 822; see also 1 Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civ.
Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2022) ¶¶7:85-7:86.)
Discussion
First Affirmative Defense
Defendant’s
First Affirmative Defense alleges that the complaint is barred by the statute
of limitations. Code of Civil Procedure
section 458 specifically provides that a statute of limitations affirmative
defense may be pleaded in general terms.
The demurrer to this affirmative defense is OVERRULED.
Second Affirmative Defense
Plaintiff
does not demur to the Second Affirmative Defense.
Third and Fourth Affirmative Defenses
The Third
and Fourth Affirmative Defenses collectively assert that Plaintiff shared in
the negligence that gave rise to the accident, such that her damages should be
limited. A party may plead negligence in
general terms. (See Rannard v.
Lockheed Aircraft Corp. (1945) 26 Cal.2d 149, 154-155.) Indeed, in the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges
only in general terms that Defendant was negligent. Accordingly, the demurrer to these
affirmative defenses is OVERRULED.
Fifth and Sixth Affirmative Defenses
Defendant’s
Fifth and Sixth Affirmative Defenses allege that injuries to the Plaintiff may
have been proximately caused by others. A
party may plead causation in general terms, as Plaintiff has done in the
Complaint. Accordingly, the demurrer to
these affirmative defenses is OVERRULED.
Seventh Affirmative Defense
Defendant’s Seventh Affirmative Defense alleges that the Plaintiff knew
of the risk of harm in the activities that she engaged in and assumed that risk
by participating in the activity. A
party may plead the knowledge or other state of mind of an adverse party in
general terms. Accordingly,
the demurrer to this affirmative defense is OVERRULED.
Eighth Affirmative Defense
In her
Eighth Affirmative Defense, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is barred from
recovering non-economic damages because she had fleeing from a felony that she
had committed (Civil Code section 3333.3), because she was driving an uninsured
vehicle (Civil Code section 3333.4 and Vehicle Code section 16020), and because
she was driving while under the influence (Vehicle Code sections 23152 and
23153). As the Complaint alleges that
Plaintiff was a pedestrian at the time of the accident, and Defendant alleges
no contrary facts in her Answer, the demurrer to this affirmative defense is SUSTAINED
with leave to amend.
Ninth Affirmative Defense
The Defendant’s Ninth Affirmative Defense alleges that Plaintiff’s
injuries arose from her failure to wear a seatbelt. As the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was a
pedestrian at the time of the accident, and Defendant alleges no contrary facts
in her Answer, the demurrer to this affirmative defense is SUSTAINED with leave
to amend.
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s Demurrer to the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth,
Sixth, and Seventh Affirmative Defenses in the Answer are OVERRULED.
Plaintiff’s Demurrer to the Eighth and Nine Affirmative
Defenses in the Answer are SUSTAINED with leave to amend.
Defendant is granted leave to amend her Answer within 30 days
of notice of this order.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.