Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case 22STCV23140 2023-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22STCV23140, Date: 2023-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23140 Hearing Date: January 18, 2023 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: January 18, 2023 TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE: Berenice Ceja v. Rahn Industries, Inc., et al.

CASE NO.: 22STCV23140

DEMURRER TO ANSWER

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Berenice Ceja

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant Rahn Industries, Inc.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is an employment discrimination action that was filed on July 19, 2022. Plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to extensive sexual harassment and retaliation for complaining about the harassment to which she was subjected, culminating in her termination.

Plaintiff demurs to certain affirmative defenses raised in the answer of Defendant Rahn Industries, Inc.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Demurrer to the Answer of Defendant Rahn Industries, Inc. is OVERRULED as to the sixth, twenty-ninth, thirty-third through thirty-fourth, thirty-sixth, forty-third, and forty-seventh defenses, and otherwise SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

Defendant shall have twenty (20) days’ leave to amend the answer from the date of this order.

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiff demurs to certain affirmative defenses raised in the answer of Defendant Rahn Industries, Inc. Specifically, Plaintiff demurs to affirmative defenses nos. 3-11, 14-17, 20-21, 23, 25-26, 28-34, 36, 38-39, 41-43, 47, and 51-54 for failure to state facts sufficient to support a defense, and for uncertainty.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 430.20 provides:

A party against whom an answer has been filed may object, by demurrer as provided in Section 430.30, to the answer upon any one or more of the following grounds:

(a) The answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

(b) The answer is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, “uncertain” includes ambiguous and unintelligible.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 430.20.)

Regarding the standards for pleading an affirmative defense:

(1) In General. An affirmative defense must be pleaded in the same manner as if the facts were set forth in a complaint. In other words, the general requirement of stating the ultimate facts applies and, where particularity in pleading is necessary in a complaint, it is equally necessary in an affirmative defense involving the issue. (Bruck v. Tucker (1871) 42 C. 346, 352; Greiss v. State Inv. & Ins. Co. (1893) 98 C. 241, 244, 33 P. 195; Bradbury v. Higginson (1914) 167 C. 553, 557, 140 P. 254 [if matter set up is an equitable cause of action, answer must contain all averments essential to statement of cause of action as such]; see 19B Am.Jur. P.P. Forms (2007 ed.), Pleading, §85 et seq.)

(2) Argumentative Denials. The affirmative form in which the defendant phrases his or her answering averments does not make them new matter. If they merely contradict essential allegations of the complaint, they are simply denials in affirmative form (“argumentative denials”). (Frisch v. Caler (1862) 21 C. 71, 74; Goddard v. Fulton (1863) 21 C. 430, 436; Rancho Santa Margarita v. Vail (1938) 11 C.2d 501, 543, 81 P.2d 533; Jolley v. Clemens (1938) 28 C.A.2d 55, 65, 82 P.2d 51, supra, §1077.)

(6 Witkin Cal. Proc. Plead § 1122.)

Affirmative defenses that are mere legal conclusions are insufficient:

The . . . answer alleged merely: “Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of waiver,” and “Plaintiff's causes of action, or some of them, are barred by the doctrine of laches because plaintiff unreasonably delayed bringing suit, causing defendants to reasonably rely on the status quo.”

These affirmative defenses consist of legal conclusions that could survive neither a demurrer nor a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Citations omitted.)

(Westly v. Board of Administration (2003) 105 Cal. App. 4th 1095, 1117.) Rather than being “proffered in the form of terse legal conclusions,” affirmative defenses must plead facts “averred as carefully and with as much detail as the facts which constitute the cause of action and are alleged in the complaint.” (FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 384.)

Further, a demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a pleading is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures. (See Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) A demurrer for uncertainty will be sustained only where the pleading is so bad that defendant cannot reasonably respond--i.e., he or she cannot reasonably determine the nature of the affirmative defenses being asserted. (See Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group) § 7:85 (emphasis in original).) "The objection of uncertainty does not go to the failure to allege sufficient facts." (Brea v. McGlashan (1934) 3 Cal.App.2d 454, 459.)

Meet and Confer

Before filing a demurrer, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who has filed the pleading subject to the demurrer and file a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41(a).) However, an insufficient meet and confer process is not grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41(a)(4).)

The Declaration of Guile Gomez included with the moving papers states that Plaintiff’s counsel sent an electronic meet and confer letter to Defendant on September 23, 2022 regarding the issues raised in this demurrer. (Declaration of Guile Gomez ISO Demurrer ¶ 3, Exh. 2.) Attorney Gomez states that he telephonically conferred with Defendant’s counsel on September 26, 2022 regarding these issues, and that Defendant’s counsel unequivocally stated in that conversation that Defendant would not amend its answer. (Id. ¶ 4.) The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the statutory meet and confer obligations.

Analysis

Plaintiff demurs to affirmative defenses nos. 3-11, 14-17, 20-21, 23, 25-26, 28-34, 36, 38-39, 41-43, 47, and 51-54 for failure to state facts sufficient to support a defense, and for uncertainty.

1. Third Affirmative Defense: Lack of Standing

This defense, mislabeled as an affirmative defense, alleges that Plaintiff’s causes of action fail because Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this action. (Answer p.2:12-15.) Plaintiff demurs to this defense for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

In opposition, Defendant states generally that each affirmative defense is supported by Defendants’ denial of any injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff and any prayers made thereupon. The Court disagrees. This defense is merely a conclusory legal assertion without supporting facts. Defendants have failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

2. Fourth Affirmative Defense: Estoppel

This affirmative defense alleges that Plaintiff is estopped from recovering against Defendant by her own acts, omissions, or representations. (Answer p.2:16-19.) Plaintiff demurs to this defense for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

3. Fifth Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands

This affirmative defense alleges that Plaintiff is barred from recovering against Defendant by reason of her own conduct under the doctrine of unclean hands. (Answer p.2:20-24.) Plaintiff demurs to this defense for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

Again, Defendant opposes with the broad statement that each affirmative defense is supported by Defendants’ denial of any injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff and any prayers made thereupon. The Court disagrees. This defense is merely a conclusory legal assertion without supporting facts. Defendants have failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

4. Sixth Affirmative Defense: Good Faith

This defense, mislabeled as an affirmative defense, alleges that Plaintiff cannot recover on the basis that Defendant acted reasonably and in good faith at all relevant times. (Answer p.2:25-3:4.) Plaintiff demurs to this defense for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

In opposition, Defendants state generally that each affirmative defense is supported by Defendants’ denial of any injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff and any prayers made thereupon. As to this defense, the Court agrees that additional allegations are not required. This defense is an argumentative denial of the allegations in the Complaint, and therefore does not require Defendant to allege additional facts in support.

5. Seventh Affirmative Defense: Waiver

This affirmative defense alleges that Plaintiff is barred from recovering against Defendant because she waived her right to do so by her own acts. (Answer p.3:5-8.) Plaintiff demurs to this defense for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

6. Eighth Affirmative Defense: Laches

This defense alleges that Plaintiff’s recovery is barred by the doctrine of laches. (Answer p.3:9-13.) Plaintiff demurs to this defense for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

In opposition, Defendants state generally that each affirmative defense is supported by Defendants’ denial of any injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff and any prayers made thereupon. The Court disagrees. This defense is merely a conclusory legal assertion without supporting facts. Defendants have failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

7. Ninth Affirmative Defense: Complaint Brought Without Reasonable Care or Good Faith

This affirmative defense alleges that the Complaint was brought without reasonable care and a good faith belief that there was a justifiable controversy. (Answer p.3:14-20.) Plaintiff demurs to this defense for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

8. Tenth Affirmative Defense: Failure to Mitigate

This defense alleges that Plaintiff’s recovery should be reduced or barred because she failed to mitigate her damages. (Answer p.3:21-25.) Plaintiff demurs to this defense for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

In opposition, Defendants state generally that each affirmative defense is supported by Defendants’ denial of any injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff and any prayers made thereupon. The Court disagrees. This defense is merely a conclusory legal assertion without supporting facts. Defendants have failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

9. Eleventh Affirmative Defense: Business Judgment Rule

This affirmative defense alleges that all of Defendant’s actions were made in good faith based on its legitimate business judgment. (Answer pp.3:26-4:1.) Plaintiff demurs to this defense for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

In opposition, Defendants state generally that each affirmative defense is supported by Defendants’ denial of any injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff and any prayers made thereupon. The Court disagrees. This defense is merely a conclusory legal assertion without supporting facts. Defendants have failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

10. Fourteenth through Sixteenth Affirmative Defenses: Just Cause Employment Termination; Legitimate Business Reasons; Business Necessity

These affirmative defenses allege that any actions taken by Defendant were taken for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons, and not on the basis of Plaintiff’s membership “in a prior class action,” and as a business necessity (Answer pp.4:12-5:7.) Plaintiff demurs to these defenses for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

In opposition, Defendants state generally that each affirmative defense is supported by Defendants’ denial of any injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff and any prayers made thereupon. The Court disagrees. These defenses are merely conclusory legal assertions without supporting facts. Defendants have failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

11. Seventeenth Affirmative Defense: Failure to Fulfill Obligations

This affirmative defense alleges that the Complaint is barred by Labor Code sections 2584 and 2586 in that Plaintiff failed to use ordinary care and diligence in performance of her duties. (Answer p.5:8-13.) Plaintiff demurs to this defense for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

In opposition, Defendants state generally that each affirmative defense is supported by Defendants’ denial of any injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff and any prayers made thereupon. The Court disagrees. This defense is merely a conclusory legal assertion without supporting facts. Defendants have failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

12. Twentieth Affirmative Defense: No Protected Conduct

This affirmative defense states that the conduct in which Plaintiff claims to have engaged before her termination was not protected under California law. (Answer p.5:25-28.) Plaintiff demurs to this defense for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

In opposition, Defendants state generally that each affirmative defense is supported by Defendants’ denial of any injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff and any prayers made thereupon. The Court disagrees. This defense is merely a conclusory legal assertion without supporting facts. Defendants have failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

13. Twenty-First and Twenty-Fifth Affirmative Defenses: Policies Not Unlawful; Compliance with Laws, Rules, and Regulations

These affirmative defenses allege that Defendant’s policies and practices are not unlawful, and that Defendant complied with all applicable laws, rules, regulations, and standards. (Answer p. 6:1-5; 6:22-26.) Plaintiff demurs to these defenses for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

In opposition, Defendants state generally that each affirmative defense is supported by Defendants’ denial of any injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff and any prayers made thereupon. The Court disagrees. These defenses are merely conclusory legal assertions without supporting facts. Defendants have failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

14. Twenty-Third Affirmative Defense: Failure to Exhaust Internal Grievance Procedure

This defense alleges that Plaintiff’s recovery should be reduced for failure to exhaust her internal grievance procedures. (Answer p.6:12-17.) Plaintiff demurs to this defense for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

In opposition, Defendants state generally that each affirmative defense is supported by Defendants’ denial of any injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff and any prayers made thereupon. The Court disagrees. This defense is merely a conclusory legal assertion without supporting facts. Defendants have failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

15. Twenty-Sixth Affirmative Defense: Justification and Privilege

This affirmative defense states that Defendant’s conduct was justified and privileged. (Answer p.7:1-4.) Plaintiff demurs to this defense for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

In opposition, Defendants state generally that each affirmative defense is supported by Defendants’ denial of any injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff and any prayers made thereupon. The Court disagrees. This defense is merely a conclusory legal assertion without supporting facts. Defendants have failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

16. Twenty-Eighth Affirmative Defense: Unjust Enrichment

This affirmative defense states that Plaintiff’s recovery under the allegations in the Complaint would constitute unjust enrichment. (Answer p.7:10-13.) Plaintiff demurs to this defense for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

In opposition, Defendants state generally that each affirmative defense is supported by Defendants’ denial of any injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff and any prayers made thereupon. The Court disagrees. This defense is merely a conclusory legal assertion without supporting facts. Defendants have failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

17. Twenty-Ninth Affirmative Defense: Perception Not Reasonable

This defense, mislabeled as an affirmative defense, alleges that Plaintiff’s recovery should be barred because her perception of conduct alleged to constitute harassment was not reasonable. (Answer p.7:14-17.) Plaintiff demurs to this defense for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

18. Thirtieth Affirmative Defense: After-Acquired Evidence

This affirmative defense states that Plaintiff’s recovery is barred to the extent that Defendant has discovered facts or may later discovery facts, which, if known to Defendant before Plaintiff’s termination, would have created an additional basis for the termination. (Answer p.7:18-25.) Plaintiff demurs to this defense for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

In opposition, Defendants state generally that each affirmative defense is supported by Defendants’ denial of any injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff and any prayers made thereupon. The Court disagrees. This defense is merely a conclusory legal assertion without supporting facts. Defendants have failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

19. Thirty-First Affirmative Defense: Consent

This affirmative defense states that Plaintiff’s recovery is barred because any actions taken were done so with Plaintiff’s consent. (Answer pp.7:26-8.2.) Plaintiff demurs to this defense for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

In opposition, Defendants state generally that each affirmative defense is supported by Defendants’ denial of any injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff and any prayers made thereupon. The Court disagrees. This defense is merely a conclusory legal assertion without supporting facts. Defendants have failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

20. Thirty-Second Affirmative Defense: Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

This affirmative defense states that Plaintiff’s recovery is barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Answer p.8:3-6.) However, the header of the defense states that it is asserting “Worker’s Compensation Preemption.” Plaintiff demurs to this defense for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

In opposition, Defendants state generally that each affirmative defense is supported by Defendants’ denial of any injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff and any prayers made thereupon. The Court disagrees. This defense is merely a conclusory legal assertion without supporting facts. Defendants have failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

21. Thirty-Third and Thirty-Fourth Affirmative Defenses: Pre-existing Mental and Physical Conditions

These affirmative defenses allege that Plaintiff’s mental, emotional, or physical distress or injury were the result of pre-existing conditions and not the actions of Defendant. (Answer p. 8:7-16.) Plaintiff demurs to these defenses for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

In opposition, Defendants state generally that each affirmative defense is supported by Defendants’ denial of any injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff and any prayers made thereupon. As to these defenses, the Court agrees that additional allegations are not required. These defenses are argumentative denials of the allegations in the Complaint, and therefore do not require Defendant to allege additional facts in support.

22. Thirty-Sixth Affirmative Defense: Exercise of Reasonable Care

This affirmative defense states that Defendant did not know nor could have known of the acts alleged in the Complaint. (Answer p.8:23-27.) Plaintiff demurs to this defense for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

23. Thirty-Eighth and Thirty-Ninth Affirmative Defenses: Assumption of Risk; Negligence

These affirmative defenses state that the alleged injuries complained of were caused by Plaintiff’s careless, recklessness, or risks of which Plaintiff was aware of and assumed, or by Plaintiff’s negligence. (Answer 9:7-17.) Plaintiff demurs to these defenses for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

In opposition, Defendants state generally that each affirmative defense is supported by Defendants’ denial of any injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff and any prayers made thereupon. The Court disagrees. These defenses are merely conclusory legal assertions without supporting facts. Defendants have failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

24. Forty-First and Forty-Second Affirmative Defenses: Intervening Cause

These affirmative defenses state that the alleged injuries complained of were caused by an intervening or superseding cause, including Plaintiff’s own conduct. (Answer p. 9:24-10:6.) Plaintiff demurs to these defenses for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

In opposition, Defendants state generally that each affirmative defense is supported by Defendants’ denial of any injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff and any prayers made thereupon. The Court disagrees. These defenses are merely conclusory legal assertions without supporting facts. Defendants have failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

25. Forty-Third Affirmative Defense: Lack of Proximate Cause

This affirmative defense states that Defendant’s conduct was not the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injury. (Answer p.10:7-11.) Plaintiff demurs to this defense for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

26. Forty-Seventh Affirmative Defense: De Minimis Doctrine

This affirmative defense states that Plaintiff’s claims fail because the damages associated with her claims are too speculative and trivial to be permitted. (Answer p.10:24-28.) Plaintiff demurs to this defense for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

27. Fifty-First Affirmative Defense: Illusory Agreement

This affirmative defense states that the alleged agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant was illusory and therefore unenforceable. (Answer p.11:15-18.) Plaintiff demurs to this defense for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

In opposition, Defendants state generally that each affirmative defense is supported by Defendants’ denial of any injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff and any prayers made thereupon. The Court disagrees. This defense is merely a conclusory legal assertion without supporting facts, and does not even appear to have any relevance to any of the allegations in the Complaint. Defendants have failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

28. Fifty-Second through Fifty-Fourth Affirmative Defenses: Incorporation of Defenses, Additional Defenses, Reservation of Right to Amend Answer

These assertions, mislabeled as affirmative defenses, state that Defendant incorporates all affirmative defenses set forth by other defendants to the extent applicable, reserves the right to assert additional defenses, and reserves the right to amend the answer. Plaintiff demurs to these defenses for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Plaintiff contends that these assertions are improper, as the procedure for amendment of a pleading to assert new affirmative defenses is set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 472. Defendant does not address these issues in its opposition. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that these assertions are not proper, and do not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

29. Uncertainty

Plaintiff demurs to each of the defenses addressed above for uncertainty. The Court rejects Plaintiff’s contentions. Even the affirmative defenses which are defective, as addressed above, are not so deficient as to meet the much stricter standard for uncertainty.

Leave to Amend

When a demurrer is sustained, the Court determines whether there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) California law imposes the burden on the party who filed the pleading to demonstrate the manner in which they can amend their pleadings to state their claims. (See Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) “Denial of leave to amend constitutes an abuse of discretion unless the [pleading] shows on its face it is incapable of amendment. [Citation.] Liberality in permitting amendment is the rule, if a fair opportunity to correct any defect has not been given." (Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1227.)

Here, Defendants have not shown the manner in which they could amend the answer to properly state their defenses against Plaintiff’s claims. However, in light of the liberal standard for permitting amendment of the pleadings, and the defects in the answer arising merely from a paucity of alleged facts, the Court will exercise its discretion to permit leave to amend the answer.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Demurrer to the Answer of Defendant Rahn Industries, Inc. is OVERRULED as to the sixth, twenty-ninth, thirty-third through thirty-fourth, thirty-sixth, forty-third, and forty-seventh defenses, and otherwise SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

Defendant shall have twenty (20) days’ leave to amend the answer from the date of this order.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2023 ___________________________________

Theresa M. Traber

Judge of the Superior Court