Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Case Number: 24STCV25513, Date: 2025-03-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 24STCV25513, Date: 2025-03-11 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.

If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.

2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.

3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING. The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

Case Number: 24STCV25513 Hearing Date: March 11, 2025 Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE: March 11, 2025

CASE NAME: Gustavo Arce Cordero v. Broadway Exchange, LP

CASE NO.: 24STCV25513

DEMURRER TO ANSWER

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Gustavo Arce Cordero

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant Broadway Exchange, LP

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1. Demurrer to all forty-three affirmative defenses in the Answer for failure to state sufficient facts to constitute an affirmative defense and for uncertainty.

TENTATIVE RULING:

1. Demurrer to affirmative defense nos. 2, 5, 9, 13, 21, 22, 27, 36 [sic], 37 [sic], 38 [sic], 39 [sic], 40 [sic], 41 [sic], 42 [sic] is SUSTAINED without leave to amend;

2. Demurrer to affirmative defense nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 33 [sic], 34 [sic], 35 [sic], 43 [sic] is SUSTAINED with leave to amend;

3. Defendant may file an amended answer within 45 days’ notice of this ruling.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On October 2, 2024, Plaintiff Gustavo Arce Cordero (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendant Broadway Exchange, LP (Defendant) with six causes of action for: (1) failure to pay wages (Lab. Code §§ 201-202, 218, 218.5, 1194, and 1194.2); (2) failure to provide meal periods (Lab. Code §§ 226.7 and 512); (3) failure to provide rest periods (Lab. Code §§ 226.7 and 512); (4) failure to pay wages due upon termination: waiting time penalties (Lab. Code §§ 201, 202, 203); (5) failure to issue accurate itemized wage statements (Lab. Code §§ 226, 226.3); and (6) unlawful/unfair business practices (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.).

According to the Complaint, Plaintiff worked for Defendant from November 23, 2023 to March 24, 2024 as a night shift front desk auditor. Plaintiff alleges that he was not allowed to take breaks, that Defendant deducted time from his paycheck for breaks he was not allowed to take, and various other labor code violations.

On November 1, 2024, Defendant filed an Answer.

On November 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a declaration of demurring party in support of automatic extension.

On December 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant demurrer. On February 26, 2025, Defendant filed an opposition. On March 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed a reply.

LEGAL STANDARD:

Meet and Confer

Prior to filing a demurrer, the demurring party is required to satisfy their meet and confer obligations pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. §430.41, and demonstrate that they so satisfied their meet and confer obligation by submitting a declaration pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. §430.41(a)(2) & (3). ¿The meet and confer requirement also applies to motions to strike. (CCP § 435.5.)¿Here, the parties exchanged two letters on November 19, 2024 and November 26, 2024. (Josephson Decl. ¶¶ 5-6.) As such, the meet and confer requirement is met.

Demurrer

A general demurrer may be made on the ground that an answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense. (Timberidge Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Santa Rosa (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 873, 880; Code Civ. Proc. § 430.20.) “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.) Affirmative defenses are based upon facts demonstrating that no cause of action exists, notwithstanding the truth of the complaint’s allegations. (Walsh v. W. Valley Mission Cmty. College Dist. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1542 n.3.) “The phrase ‘new matter’ refers to something relied on by a defendant which is not put in issue by the plaintiff. Thus, where matters are not responsive to essential allegations of the complaint, they must be raised in the answer as new matter. Where, however, the answer sets forth facts showing some essential allegation of the complaint is not true, such facts are not new matter, but only a traverse.” (State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 721, 725.) “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.” (South Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 733.)

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff contends the court should sustain their demurrer to all forty-three affirmative defenses because they lack factual support and are otherwise uncertain. Defendant argues that the Answer is sufficient to respond to an unverified Complaint to get this matter at issue. Plaintiff replies that the code does not permit Defendant to list boilerplate affirmative defenses without factual support.

Affirmative Defense Nos. 2, 5, 9, 13, 21, 22, 27, 36 [sic], 37 [sic], 38 [sic], 39 [sic], 40 [sic], 41 [sic], 42 [sic] – Denying Complaint Allegations

These are not “new matter” because they directly contradict Plaintiff’s allegations. (State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., supra, 228 Cal.App.3d at p. 725.)

Here, Defendant’s affirmative defense nos. 2, 5, 9, 13, 21, 22, 27, 36 [sic], 37 [sic], 38 [sic], 39 [sic], 40 [sic], 41 [sic], 42 [sic] are adequately covered by its general denial and is therefore duplicative and should not be separately stated.

Accordingly, the court SUSTAINS the demurrer to affirmative defense nos. 2, 5, 9, 13, 21, 22, 27, 36 [sic], 37 [sic], 38 [sic], 39 [sic], 40 [sic], 41 [sic], 42 [sic] without leave to amend.

Affirmative Defense Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 33 [sic], 34 [sic], 35 [sic], 43 [sic] – Contentions

Plaintiff contends that these affirmative defenses are defective because they lack factual allegations. Defendant argues such specificity is not required and facts may be developed during discovery. Alternatively, Defendant argues that it must allege these affirmative defenses or else they are waived. Plaintiff replies this is not the law.

“All of the allegations are proffered in the form of terse legal conclusions, rather than as 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. See also In re Quantification Settlement Agreement Cases (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 758, 813 (“affirmative defenses cannot be pled as mere legal conclusions, but must instead be alleged with as much factual detail as the allegations of a complaint.”).)

Here, affirmative defense nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 33 [sic], 34 [sic], 35 [sic], 43 [sic] lack any factual support and are therefore insufficient. Additionally, the purported forty-third affirmative defense is a reservation of rights. (Code Civ. Proc. § 431.30 (“(b) The answer to a complaint shall contain: (1) The general or specific denial of the material allegations of the complaint controverted by the defendant. (2) A statement of any new matter constituting a defense. (c) Affirmative relief may not be claimed in the answer.”).)

Accordingly, the court SUSTAINS the demurrer to affirmative defense nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 33 [sic], 34 [sic], 35 [sic], 43 [sic] with leave to amend.

CONCLUSION:

For the foregoing reasons, the court decides the pending motion as follows:

1. Demurrer to affirmative defense nos. 2, 5, 9, 13, 21, 22, 27, 36 [sic], 37 [sic], 38 [sic], 39 [sic], 40 [sic], 41 [sic], 42 [sic] is SUSTAINED without leave to amend;

2. Demurrer to affirmative defense nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 33 [sic], 34 [sic], 35 [sic], 43 [sic] is SUSTAINED with leave to amend;

3. Defendant is ordered to file an amended answer within 30 days’ notice of this ruling.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2025 __________________________________ Upinder S. Kalra

Judge of the Superior Court