Judge William A. Crowfoot, Case Number: 23AHCV02043, Date: 2024-02-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV02043, Date: 2024-02-16 Tentative Ruling

On September 6, 2023, plaintiff Virginia Acosta (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Angela Consolida and Giuseppe Consolida (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges that on or about October 29, 2018, she entered into a contract with Angela Consolida’s father, Michael “Mike” Macchia, to rent the property located at 8855 3/4 Mission Drive in Rosemead, California (the “Property”) for $1,000 a month for one year. On February 1, 2023, Defendants informed Plaintiff that they planned to renovate the Property and that Plaintiff would need to move out temporarily until June 1, 2023. Plaintiff moved out around March 1, 2023, at which point Defendants informed Plaintiff that she would need to complete a new rental application. On or about April 1, 2023, Plaintiff brought a new rental application to the Property and discovered that a new tenant had moved in. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, trespass, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence, wrongful eviction, constructive eviction, and unfair business practices.

On October 12, 2023, Defendants file an answer asserting 44 affirmative defenses.

The allegations of the pleading demurred to must be regarded as true. (South Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 730.) All that is necessary against a demurrer is that, upon consideration of all of the facts stated, it appears that the party whose pleading is attacked by such a demurrer is entitled to any relief at the hands of the court against his adversary. (Id. at p. 733.) When considering a demurrer to answer, 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.” (Ibid.) “[T]he demurrer to the answer admits all issuable facts pleaded therein and eliminates all allegations of the complaint denied by the answer.” (Ibid.)

A verified complaint must be denied positively or according to information and belief. A general denial is effective to controvert all material allegations of an unverified complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.30, subd. (d).) Anything less than a general denial of the whole complaint is a “qualified” or “specific” denial. A defendant can direct his or her denials to specific sentences, paragraphs, of parts of the complaint. Although not widely used, a defendant can also effectively deny allegations in the complaint by alleging contrary or inconsistent facts.

In addition to denials, the answer should contain any and all affirmative defenses or objections to the complaint that defendant may have, and that would otherwise not be in issue under a simple denial. Such defenses or objections are “new matter.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.30, subd. (b).) Generally, a defendant bears the burden of proving “new matter” and, as such, must be specifically pleaded in the answer. (California Academy of Sciences v. County of Fresno (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1436, 1442.) “The phrase ‘new matter’ refers to something relied on by a defendant which is not put in issue by the plaintiff.” (Walsh v. West Valley Mission Community College District (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1546.) Where the answer sets forth facts showing some essential allegation of the complaint is not true, such facts are not new matter but are denials. (Ibid.)

The same pleading of “ultimate facts” rather than evidentiary matter or legal conclusions is required as in pleading a complaint. The answer must aver facts as carefully and with as much detail as the facts which constitute the cause of action and which are alleged in the complaint. (FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashimi (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 384.) The various affirmative defenses must be separately stated and must refer to the causes of action to which they relate “in a manner by which they may be intelligently distinguished.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.30(g).) Defenses must be pleaded in the nature of “yes, the allegations [of the complaint] are true, but . . .” (FPI Development, Inc., supra, 231 Cal.App.3d at p. 383.)

The First and Thirty-Second Affirmative Defenses state that Plaintiff has not stated facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action or claim for punitive damages against Defendants. These are not affirmative defenses because it does not introduce new material and Plaintiff’s burden of proof remains the same regardless of whether this defense is stated in the answer. Therefore, the demurrer to the First and Thirty-Second Affirmative Defense is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

The Fifth Affirmative Defense states that the action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Code of Civil Procedure section 458 specifically provides that a statute of limitations affirmative defense may be pleaded without any accompanying facts. The demurrer to the Fifth Affirmative Defense is therefore OVERRULED.

With respect to the other 41 affirmative defenses, Defendants argue that they are sufficiently supported with facts that alert Plaintiff of their nature. (Opp., pp. 4-6.) Defendants point out that Plaintiff does not specifically identify which facts are missing and that their affirmative defenses are equally as detailed as Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Opp., pp. 8-9) Defendants also state that they will commit to providing responses to Form Interrogatory 15.1, which will fully address any specific issues Plaintiff may have with their affirmative defenses. (Opp., p. 8.)

In light of the fact that Plaintiff failed to file a reply brief, the Court SUSTAINS the demurrer to the First and Thirty-Second Affirmative Defenses only without leave to amend. The demurrer to the remainder of the affirmative defenses is OVERRULED.

William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.