Demurrer to Answer; Case Management Conference; OSC re: Sanctions
(Id. at 258.)
Plaintiff cites to no legal authority holding that a five-year lease not signed by either party survives the defense of the statute of frauds.
Plaintiff also fails to demonstrate a risk of irreparable harm.
Plaintiff’s CFO, Steven Bolden submits a declaration. (ROA 13.) He states that “Plaintiff’s business consists of manufacturing, marketing and distribution of products in the wellness and automobile electronics industries.” (Bolden Decl., ¶ 4.) He also states that having to move Plaintiff’s operations would “disrupt Plaintiff’s business and pose a potential risk the[sic] Plaintiff’s inventory.” (Bolden Decl., ¶ 14.) He also states that finding a substitute property would be difficult and expensive, and that Plaintiff’s employees might resign. (Bolden Decl., ¶¶ 15-16.)
These statements are somewhat conclusory. No detail is provided about the size of Plaintiff’s inventory that it would need to move and store. Nor is any information provided regarding the type of property that Plaintiff requires to operate its business. It is further unclear why Plaintiff’s employees would resign due to a move. In short, Plaintiff does not meet its burden to establish irreparable injury.
In addition, Plaintiff has not shown that monetary remedies are inadequate. When an award of damages constitutes an adequate legal remedy, a judge may not issue a preliminary injunction. (Tahoe Keys Prop. Owners' Ass'n v State Water Resources Control Bd. (1994) 23 CA4th 1459, 1471.)
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s application for a preliminary injunction is denied.
The Court has reviewed the Notice of Related Case filed in this matter. The Court stays this matter pending the outcome of the related Complaint for Unlawful Detainer filed in Orange County Superior Case No. 30-2026-01559888. The case management conference of August 10, 2026 is vacated. The Court sets a review hearing re: status of the stay for August 31, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. in Department C27.
Defendant is ordered to give notice.
105 2025-01473824 1. Demurrer to Answer 2. Case Management Conference Guerrero vs. BJ's 3. Order to Show Cause re: Sanctions for Failure to File Case Management Statement Restaurants, Inc. Plaintiff Nikole Guerrero’s demurrer to each affirmative defense in Defendant BJ’s Restaurants, Inc.’s answer is sustained in part, with 15 days leave to amend, and overruled in part.
Legal Standard
CCP section 431.30, subdivision (b), provides: 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.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
There are three grounds for a demurrer to an answer: (1) failure to state facts sufficient to
constitute a defense; (2) uncertainty; and (3) failure to state whether a contract alleged in an answer is written or oral. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.20.) “Generally, a party must raise an issue as an affirmative defense where the matter is not responsive to essential allegations of the complaint. [] Thus, where a defendant relies on facts not put in issue by the plaintiff, the defendant must plead such facts as an affirmative defense.” (Bevill v. Zoura (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 694, 698.) Like a complaint, the answer must plead “ultimate facts.” (See FPI Development, Inc. v.
Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 384.) However, if the answer merely negates “some essential allegation of the complaint” as “not true,” these matters are put at issue by the general denial and do not need to be specially pleaded in the answer. (Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial at ¶ 6:437, citing City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 747, 780, fn. 58.)
Here, the first affirmative defense, for failure to state a claim, does not need to be specially pleaded because it raises no “new matter” and is an “unwaivable” objection to a complaint or cross-complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.80, subd. (a).) Likewise, the Court finds Defendant adequately pled its second affirmative defense based on the statute of limitations. (Code Civ. Proc., § 458.) Thus, the demurrers to the first and second affirmative defense are overruled.
Additionally, the Court finds the following defenses have been put at issue by the allegations in the complaint, and that no “new matter” needed to be pleaded in order to support them: workers’ compensation exclusivity (13th); third party conduct/superseding cause (23rd and 36th); intentional tort/criminal act as superseding cause (24th); laches (41st); and, arbitration (45th).
The Court sustains the demurrers to the remainder of Defendant’s affirmative defenses, because they require pleading new matter that are not responsive to any allegations in the complaint. In its opposition, Defendant argues its answer is sufficient so long as it “provides Plaintiff with notice of its defenses.” (Opp’n at pp. 6-7, citing Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550.) This argument is not persuasive because Doe was addressing the less particularity doctrine and whether the plaintiff was allowed to plead allegations based on information and belief. (Doe v.
City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 549–550, citation omitted.) Here, there is no indication that Plaintiff would have “particularized knowledge” of the facts that could potentially support Defendant’s affirmative defenses, or that allegations on information and belief are necessary. The Code specifically requires the answer to contain “a statement of any new matter constituting a defense.” Because Defendant has alleged defenses that are outside of the matters put at issue by Plaintiff, the onus is on Defendant to plead the ultimate facts on which they are based.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court overrules the demurrers to the 1st, 2nd, 13th, 23rd, 24th, 36th, 41st, and 45th affirmative defenses in Defendant’s answer. The remainder of Plaintiff’s demurrer is sustained with 15 days leave to amend.
The order to show cause is discharged. The case management conference is continued to October 19, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. in Department C27. Each party is ordered to file a timely updated case management statement prior to this date.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the ruling.
106 2023-01339201 1. Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication 2. Order to Show Cause