Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 24STCV31012, Date: 2025-04-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV31012    Hearing Date: April 7, 2025    Dept: 45

1530 DATE STREET, LLC v. ACE DIVERSION, INC.

demurrer to answer

Date of Hearing:        April 7, 2025                                      Trial Date:       None set.

Department:              45                                                        Case No.:        24STCV31012

Moving Party:            Plaintiff 1530 Date Street LLC

Responding Party:     No opposition

Meet and Confer:      Yes. (Marton Decl. ¶5-15)

BACKGROUND

This is an unlawful detainer action. On November 22, 2024, Plaintiff 1530 Date Street, LLC filed the action against Defendant Ace Diversion, Inc. alleging after Ace took possession of the property, Ace trashed the interior office space and failed to pay the increased rental rate.

On December 5, 2024, Defendant Ace Diversion, Inc. filed their answer. Plaintiff now demurs to the answer.

[Tentative] Ruling

Plaintiff 1530 Date Street, LLC’s Demurrer to Defendant Ace Diversion, Inc.’s Answer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff 1530 Date Street, LLC demurs to the first through thirty-ninth affirmative defenses pled in Defendant Ace Diversion, Inc.’s answer to the complaint on the grounds that the affirmative defenses contained in Ace’s Answer fail to state facts sufficient to constitute an affirmative defense, are uncertain, and are not affirmative defenses.

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.”  (CCP § 430.20(a), (b).)  An affirmative defense is considered “new matter” beyond a general denial. (CCP § 431.30(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.)  

Plaintiff argues Ace did not allege any facts to support their thirty-nine affirmative defenses. For example, Plaintiff contends Ace did not allege any facts to support its seventh affirmative defense of “Failure of Condition Precedent/Subsequent.” For this affirmative defense, Plaintiff contends Ace made no mention of facts indicating what the condition precedent or subsequent is, much less facts supporting the failure of that condition. Plaintiff goes on to address several other examples of Ace failing to state facts sufficient to constitute any of the affirmative defenses. Moreover, Plaintiff argues many of the defenses Ace pled are not affirmative defenses (Affirmative Defenses Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 11, 21, 35, and 46).

The court agrees Defendant has failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense as to the thirty-nine affirmative defenses alleged. As noted by Plaintiff, none of the affirmative defenses are supported facts, rather just mere conclusions of law. Additionally, several of the affirmative defenses are not affirmative defenses at all. As noted by Plaintiff, some either belong as general denials or are not any kind of general denial or defense under the law.

Accordingly, Plaintiff 1530 Date Street, LLC’s Demurrer to Defendant Ace Diversion, Inc.’s Answer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.