Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV03253, Date: 2023-04-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV03253    Hearing Date: April 13, 2023    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:      April 13, 2023                                                TRIAL DATE:  Oct. 31, 2023

CASE:                         Walker et al. v. Avalon Hollywood Gp, LLC, et al.

CASE NO.:                 21STCV03253

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiffs Martel Walker and Lindsay Gold

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants Avalon Hollywood Gp, LLC, Avalon Hollywood, LP, Avalonbay Communities, Inc.

CASE HISTORY:

·         01/27/21:         Complaint filed.

·         10/13/21:         Answer filed.

·         2/21/23:           Plaintiffs’ instant motion for judgment on the pleadings filed.

·         03/17/23:         Defendants filed amended answer.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is an action, filed on January 27, 2021, for breach of a rental lease contract, breach of the implied warranty of habitability, fraud, and negligence.

Plaintiffs move for judgment on the pleadings on defendant’s amended answer.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s demurrer to defendant’s amended answer is OVERRULED.

DISCUSSION:

Demurrer

A demurrer to an answer may be appropriate if “[t]he answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense [or] [t]he answer is uncertain.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.20, subds. (a), (b).)

An affirmative defense is considered “new matter” beyond a general denial. (§ 431.30, subd. (b)(2).) The defendant bears the burden of proof to establish any new matters. (Harris v City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 239.) The answer must allege the facts on which the defense is founded. (See California Trust Co. v. Gustason (1940) 15 Cal.2d 268, 273.)

Ultimate facts are generally sufficient, rather than evidentiary matters or legal conclusions.  (See Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550.)  Even where a defense is defectively pled, it may be allowed if the Answer gives sufficient notice to enable the plaintiff to prepare to meet the defense, in part because un-pled defenses are waived. (See Harris v. City of Santa Monica, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 240.)

            1. Meet and Confer; Request for Judicial Notice

The parties satisfied meet-and-confer requirements.

Plaintiff Martel Walker filed a declaration stating the parties met and conferred by telephone in December 2022. Defendants’ counsel also confirmed that the parties met and conferred by letter, email, and telephone. (Declaration of Laura C. Williams (Williams Decl.) ¶¶ 5-9.) Defendants’ counsel claims plaintiffs failed to meet and confer in good faith (ibid.), but the record is insufficient for the Court to make that determination, nor would it be grounds by itself to deny plaintiffs’ motion.

The parties satisfied the requirement of Code of Civil Procedure section 439.

Plaintiffs’ requests for judicial notice are procedurally and substantively improper.

Plaintiffs filed two requests for judicial notice, one appended to their motion, the other appended to their reply papers.

Plaintiffs first seek judicial notice of three prior filings within this same case. The Court need not take notice of filings within its own case record. Judicial notice of court filings recognizes only the fact of their filing and that the statements therein were made; the Court does not take notice of their contents’ truth. (Wolf v. CDS Devo (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 903, 914-915.) The facts of the documents’ filing and contentions are already in the case file. To take unnecessary, redundant judicial notice would only create confusion.

Plaintiffs have also inappropriately made requests for judicial notice in their reply. Before taking judicial notice of any matter, both parties must be given “reasonable opportunity . . . to present to the court information relevant to . . . the propriety of taking judicial notice of the matter . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 455, subd. (c).) Reply papers filed on five court days’ notice do not give defendants sufficient opportunity to reply to plaintiffs’ request.

The Court DENIES plaintiffs’ requests for judicial notice in their entirety.

//

2. The answers – initial and amended – sufficiently allege ultimate facts.

Plaintiff contends that all affirmative defenses are insufficiently pled and are devoid of factual specificity.

While there are few evidentiary facts alleged in defendants’ Answer, the cardinal rule of pleading is that only the ultimate facts need be alleged.  (Semole v. Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 714, 719.)  Furthermore, the “‘distinction between conclusions of law and ultimate facts is not at all clear and involves at most a matter of degree. [Citations.] For example, the courts have permitted allegations which obviously included conclusions of law and have termed them “ultimate facts” or “conclusions of fact.”’” (Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6.)

Further, 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 and is not unsupported by factual allegations as Plaintiff contends; rather it is read with reference to the facts alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiffs filed a thirty-four page complaint replete with allegations that, taken as true, support defendants’ affirmative defenses. Defendants need not supplement their answer with further material.

Moreover, “if one of the defenses or counterclaims is free from the objections urged by demurrer, then a demurrer to the entire answer must be overruled.”  (South Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 734.)

The Court has reviewed the defenses and finds that it fairly apprises Plaintiff of the alleged affirmative defenses.  Plaintiff does not argue these defenses are irrelevant to the legal theories pled.  Plaintiff simply contends that the defenses all fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.  As pled, the defenses are sufficient to withstand demurrer.  (See Khoury v. Maly’s of California Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616 [“A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.”].)  Any uncertainty as to the facts underlying Defendants’ affirmative defenses can be clarified in discovery; specifically, Plaintiff can propound Form Interrogatory 15.1 on Defendants for further details.  Unverified affirmative defenses, by their nature, are necessarily asserted at the beginning of the case and out of an abundance of caution because the failure to assert an affirmative defense may constitute a waiver and cannot always be pled in detail.  (Vitkievicz v. Valverde (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1306, 1314; Code Civ. Proc., §430.80, subd. (a).)

The Court also notes that defendants have already filed a lengthy, unusually detailed Amended Answer responding to plaintiffs’ arguments, which renders their motion largely moot.

The Court OVERRULES plaintiffs’ demurrer to defendants’ answer.

The Court adopts defendants’ first amended answer, filed March 17, 2023 as the operative answer to plaintiffs’ complaint.

            3. Sanctions

Defendants also seek sanctions against plaintiffs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5, subdivision (a). Defendants have not met the high burden of showing plaintiffs’ motion is “totally and completely without merit or for the sole purpose of harassing” them. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5, subd. (a), italics added.) But the Court notes its disapproval of moving for judgment on a responsive pleading, more than one year after its filing, and – at least according to defendants – without meeting and conferring in good faith.

Moving party to give notice, unless waived. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   April 13, 2023                                                           ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing.  All interested parties must be copied on the email.  It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.