Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 24STCV30082, Date: 2025-05-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV30082    Hearing Date: May 6, 2025    Dept: 45

RYUTARO ISOBE vs JOHN HARUKI

demurrer to defendant’s answer

Date of Hearing:        May 6, 2025                                       Trial Date:       None set.

Department:              45                                                        Case No.:        24STCV30082

Moving Party:            Plaintiff Ryutaro Isobe

Responding Party:     No opposition

Meet and Confer:      Yes. (Meet and Confer Decl.)

BACKGROUND

On November 15, 2024, Plaintiff Ryutaro Isobe filed a complaint against Defendant John Haruki for (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (3) Fraud; (4) Unjust Enrichment/Restitution; (5) Money Had and Received; (6) Conversion; and (7) Violation of Penal Code §496.

[Tentative] Ruling

Plaintiff’s Demurrer to the Answer is OVERRULED.

DISCUSSION

The court notes Plaintiff has not filed any proof of service for the demurrer to Defendant’s answer. No opposition has been filed. Plaintiff must confirm Defendant has been served the demurrer at the hearing. The court rules as following on the demurrer.

A demurrer to an answer may be brought on one of three grounds: (1) the answer does not include facts sufficient to constitute a defense; (2) uncertainty; and (3) the facts, as pleaded, are insufficient to determine whether an alleged contract in the answer is written or oral.¿(CCP § 430.20.) The demurrer may be to the whole answer or to any one or more of the several defenses set up in the answer. (Code Civ. Proc., §430.50(b).) The plaintiff may not, however, demur to part of a defense and, in order to determine the sufficiency of a defense, it must be considered as a whole. Each defense must be considered separately without regard to any other defense, and one defense does not become insufficient because it is inconsistent with other parts of the answer. (South Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 733.) 

In the instant matter, the court finds Defendant’s affirmative defenses sufficiently plead the ultimate fact and give notice to the opposing party of a potentially meritorious defense. (See Welch v. Derian (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 750, 754.) 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. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Demurrer to Answer is OVERRULED.