| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Demurrer to Answer
Plaintiffs Michael C. Lin and Michael Lin, Inc.’s demurrer to Defendant FCA US LLC’s Amended Answer is SUSTAINED in part with leave to amend and OVERRULED in part. Generally, in addition to denials, the answer should contain whatever 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 referred to as “new matter.” (CCP § 431.30(b); Department of Finance v. City of Merced (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 286, 294-295 (DOF’s petition alleged it made findings; City’s general denial did not put at issue correctness of findings, which was new matter that needed to be pled as affirmative defense.).)
Any issue on which defendant bears the burden of proof at trial is “new matter” and must be specially pleaded in the answer. (Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 239—“It has long been held that if the onus of proof is thrown upon the defendant, the matter to be proved by him is new matter” (emphasis in original; internal quotes omitted); Mountain Air Enterprises, LLC v. Sundowner Towers, LLC (2017) 3 Cal.5th 744, 755-756; California Academy of Sciences v. County of Fresno (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1436, 1442.)
The demurrer to Defendant’s second and seventh affirmative defenses is OVERRULED on the grounds that Plaintiffs made no arguments to support the demurrer. The demurrer to Defendant’s third and eighth affirmative defenses is OVERRULED because they were not included in the Notice of Demurrer. The demurrer to Defendant’s first affirmative defense for failure to state a cause of action is OVERRULED. The inclusion of an “affirmative defense” asserting a failure to state sufficient facts is common and, ultimately, harmless: “[N]o error or defect in a pleading is to be regarded unless it affects substantial rights.” (Harris v.
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?”
City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 240). “The primary function of a pleading is to give the other party notice so that it may prepare its case...and a defect in a pleading that otherwise properly notifies a party cannot be said to affect substantial rights.” (Ibid.) The demurrer to Defendant’s fourth affirmative defense (arbitration agreement) is OVERRULED. This affirmative defense is based on the contract already pled in the Complaint and therefore is not new matter. While it may not technically be a defense to a cause of action, its inclusion in the Answer is ultimately harmless.
The demurrer to Defendant’s fifth affirmative defense (statute of limitation) is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend. Code Civ. Proc., § 458 provides, “In pleading the Statute of Limitations it is not necessary to state the facts showing the defense, but it may be stated generally that the cause of action is barred by the provisions of Section ____ (giving the number of the section and subdivision thereof, if it is so divided, relied upon) of the Code of Civil Procedure; and if such allegation be controverted, the party pleading must establish, on the trial, the facts showing that the cause of action is so barred.”
Here, Defendant has cited numerous code sections but has not identified which code section is applicable to which cause of action, and has not identified any subsections, where applicable. The demurrer to the sixth affirmative defense for stateof-the-art is OVERRULED. Defendant asserts “FCA's acts at the time of design, manufacture, and/or distribution of the subject vehicle were in conformity with the state-of-the-art based upon the mechanical, technical, and scientific knowledge existing at the relevant time, and FCA complied with all industry and government standards.”
This is not new matter, as the Complaint puts into issue Defendant’s compliance with applicable standards. The demurrer to the ninth through twelfth affirmative defenses for unreasonable and unauthorized use of vehicle; negligence of others; lack of maintenance and other exclusions; and modification of property is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend. These defenses raise new matters but are not supported by facts.