Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 22STCV07730, Date: 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV07730    Hearing Date: September 8, 2022    Dept: 31

PLAINTIFF’S DEMURER TO ANSWER IS SUSTAINED, IN PART 

Background 

On March 03, 2022, Plaintiff Joycelyne Lew, Trustee of the Jocelyne Lew Revocable Trust and Joycelyne Lew, an individual, filed a Complaint against Defendant Jermome Maida, JR and Does 1 to 25 for Forcible Detainer, in violation of the Code of Civil Procedure section 1160. 

Defendant filed an Answer on April 20, 2022. Plaintiff filed this Demurrer to Defendant’s answer on May 25, 2022. 

Defendant filed Opposition papers on August 23, 2022. No Reply has been filed. 

Legal Standard 

Before filing a demurrer, the demurring party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading demurred, in person or telephonically, to determine whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of an amended pleading that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc. (CCP) § 430.41.) 

Plaintiff’s counsel states they sent emails to Defense counsel, Maria Giragossian, on May 10, 2022, and May 4, 2022, to try to resolve the issues raised in the demurrer. (Silbermann Decl. ¶ 7.) Thus, the meet and confer requirement is met. 

Legal Standard 

An answer to a complaint shall contain (i) the general or specific denial of the material allegations of the complaint controverted by the defendant and (ii) a statement of any new matter constituting a defense. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 431.30(b).) The same pleading of ultimate facts, rather than merely legal conclusions, that is required in pleading a complaint is also required in pleading an answer. (See FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashimi (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 367, 384 [stating rule that answer must allege facts “averred as carefully and with as much detail as the facts which constitute the cause of action and which are alleged in the complaint.”].) The defenses must be separately stated and refer to the causes of action they are intended to answer. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 431.30(g).) 

A plaintiff can demur to an answer on the ground that the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 430.20(a).) “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.) Determining whether an answer is sufficient requires an examination of the complaint because the adequacy of the answer is assessed by reference to the complaint it purports to answer. (Id. at 733.) A demurrer “can be an effective tool for eliminating ‘boilerplate’ affirmative defenses that often appear in answers.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide, Civil Procedure before Trial (Rutter 2010) § 7:35:1.) 

However, Code of Civil Procedure section 475 provides that “[t]he court must, in every stage of an action, disregard any error . . . or defect [] in the pleadings or proceedings which, in the opinion of said court, does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”   

Discussion 

Deficiencies in Notice 

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s notice to the Demurrer lists the date of the hearing as October 10, 2022, rather than September 08, 2022. However, the Defendant has filed an Opposition to the Motion noting the correct date of the hearing. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Defendant has not been prejudiced by the fact that the incorrect hearing date is listed in the notice of the Demurrer. 

Demurrer 

Plaintiff demurs to Defendant’s Answer filed on April 20, 2022 as to the first through ninth affirmative defenses on the basis that the Answer fails to allege facts, sufficient to constitute a defense, is uncertain, vague and unintelligible. (CCP §§ 430.20 subds. (a) and (b); 430.10 subd. (f).) 

The defenses asserted should be relevant to a plaintiff’s legal claims and asserted as carefully and with as much detail as the facts constituting the corresponding causes of action in the complaint. (See FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 384. They should not be proffered in the form of “terse legal conclusions.” (Id.)  

Nevertheless, an answer must be read in the context of the complaint, and it must be given the same liberal construction given to complaints. (See South Shore Land Co v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 733. [“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”]; Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.) Ultimately, the question is whether the opposing party has “sufficient notice of the cause of action [or affirmative defense] stated against him so that he will be able to prepare his case.” (Furhman v. California Satellite Systems (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 408, 423, disapproved on other grounds by Silberg v. Anderson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 205, 219.)  

Demurrer to the following affirmative defenses is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND: 

4th Affirmative Defense: The “COVID-19” Tenant Relief Act. Defendant states the Complaint is defective because it does not comply with the pleading requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1179.01.5, but fails to assert whether Defendant qualifies for relief under the Tenant Relief Act or states facts regarding the applicability of the Tenant Relief Act or why the Complaint fails to satisfy section 1179.01.5. Accordingly, the defense is ambiguous and uncertain. 

5th and 6th Affirmative Defense:  Prohibition Against Just Cause Evictions/Tenant Protection/At-Fault “Just Cause” Eviction lacks specificity as to what specific defense Defendant is asserting and merely states legal conclusions without asserting any relevant facts. Accordingly, the defenses are vague, ambiguous, and uncertain. 

7th Affirmative Defense, Defective Service of Notice/Defective Notice. The defense is uncertain and ambiguous because it contains legal conclusions that are too general and fails to state any facts. The Defendant should include the facts that support the defense asserted when amending such as why the notice was ambiguous or unreasonably burdensome. 

8th Affirmative Defense: Retaliation/Discrimination/Failure to Accommodate. The defense states legal conclusions without stating sufficient facts. The boilerplate assertions that Plaintiff retaliated against Defendant fails to state what rights Defendant exercised, Plaintiff’s knowledge of Defendant exercising that right, and when the retaliation occurred.  Accordingly, the defense is too vague and ambiguous to put Plaintiff on notice. 

Demurrer to the following affirmative defenses is OVERRULED: 

1st Affirmative Defense: Defective Complaint. The defense provides sufficient notice to Plaintiff that her single cause of action for forcible detainer fails to state sufficient facts to support the cause of action or relief requested. 

2nd Affirmative Defense: Breach of Warranty of Habitability asserts that a government agency cited the Property, finding that Plaintiff/Landlord breached the implied warranty of habitability, what the issues were, and that Plaintiff still demanded payment. The facts stated are sufficient to put the Plaintiff on notice and any additional facts can be uncovered through discovery. 

3rd Affirmative Defense: Prohibition of non-payment and no-fault evictions during COVID-19 by the City of Los Angles asserts that Plaintiff’s notice was issued in violation of the ordinance which barred “no fault” and non-payment of rent evictions. To the extent that Plaintiff asserts the ordinance is unconstitutional, the defect in not apparent on the face of the Answer. The validity of the defense is not at issue in a demurrer, only whether the defense asserted provides notice to Plaintiff so she can prepare a case. 

 “The primary function of a pleading is to give the other party notice so that it may prepare its case [citation], and a defect in a pleading that otherwise properly notifies a party cannot be said to affect substantial rights. This principle is consistent with the rule that leave to amend a pleading should be liberally granted as long as there is no timeliness problem under a statute of limitations or prejudice to the opposing party. [Citations.]” (Harris v. City of Santa Monica¿(2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 240.) 

Accordingly, the Demurrer to the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th affirmative defenses is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND and OVERRULED as to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd affirmative defenses. 

Conclusion 

Plaintiff’s Demurrer to the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th affirmative defenses is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND and OVERRULED as to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd affirmative defenses. 

Plaintiff to give notice. 

The parties are strongly encouraged to attend all scheduled hearings virtually or by audio. Effective July 20, 2020, all matters will be scheduled virtually and/or with audio through the Court’s LACourtConnect technology. The parties are strongly encouraged to use LACourtConnect for all their matters. All masking protocols will be observed at the Courthouse and in the courtrooms.