Michael Helmrich vs. San Juan Unified School District

34-2022-00329107-CU-PO-GDS: Michael Helmrich vs. San Juan Unified School District 06/20/2023 Hearing on Demurrer - Civil Law and Motion - Demurrer/JOP in Department 53

or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

Plaintiff Michael Helmrich and Stevi Helmrich’s (“Plaintiffs”) demurrer to the answer of Defendant San Juan Unified School District (“Defendant”) is UNOPPOSED and SUSTAINED with leave to amend as follows.

Plaintiffs’ notice of demurrer does not provide the address for Department 53. The address for Departments 53 and 54 (Law and Motion) of the Sacramento County Superior Court is 813 6th Street, Sacramento, California, 95814. Plaintiffs’ notice also incorrectly states that, “Local Rule 1.06 is modified such that tentative rulings will be issued two days prior to the hearing date and the party requesting argument is required to provide notice to the Court and counsel of that request by noon the following day.” Accurate information concerning the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06 is included on page 2 of Plaintiffs’ Notice. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall notify Defendant’s counsel immediately.

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on October 31, 2022, alleging four causes of action against Defendant arising from injuries Plaintiffs received on or around February 16, 2022. Defendant filed its answer on December 29, 2022, asserting twenty-two (22) affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs’ counsel attempted to meet and confer with Defendant’s counsel by phone on January 10, 2023, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, prior to filing this demurrer.

Plaintiffs’ demur to Defendant’s affirmative defenses nos. 1-4, 6-10, 12-20, and 21 on the grounds that each fails to state facts sufficient to constitute an affirmative defense. (Code of Civil Procedure section 430.20, subd. (a).) The Court notes that Plaintiffs’ notice of demurrer states that Plaintiffs’ demurrer challenges all but Defendant’s fifth affirmative defense, but Plaintiffs’ memorandum of points and authorities in support of demurrer only includes arguments for the affirmative defenses noted above.

A party may file a demurrer to an answer on the grounds that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense. (Code of Civil Procedure section 430.20, subd. (a).) A demurrer to an answer follows the same general rules as a demurrer to a complaint. (South Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 732.) Thus, only the contents on the face of the answer are considered, and factual allegations are accepted as true, but legal conclusions are not. (Ibid.)

Each affirmative defense is considered a "new matter" beyond the general denial. (Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, subd. (b)(2).) A new matter is one in which the defendant has the burden of proof. (Harris v City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 239.) Affirmative

34-2022-00329107-CU-PO-GDS: Michael Helmrich vs. San Juan Unified School District 06/20/2023 Hearing on Demurrer - Civil Law and Motion - Demurrer/JOP in Department 53

defenses must be pled in the same fashion, and with the same specificity, as a cause of action in a complaint. (FPI Development, Inc. vs. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 384; Mountain Air Enterprises, LLC v. Sundowner Towers, LLC (2017) 3 Cal.5th 744, 756.) As with a cause of action, an affirmative defense must be pleaded with ultimate facts. (5 Witkin California Procedure (6th ed. 2023), Pleading, § 1122 [citing cases].) Terse legal conclusions will not generally survive demurrer. (FPI Development, Inc., supra, 231 Cal.App.3d at p. 384; Quantification Settlement Agreement Cases (2011) 201 Cal. App. 4th 758, 813.)

Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s affirmative defenses nos. 1-4, 6-10, 12-20, and 21 are each devoid of facts to support the asserted defenses and that affirmative defenses nos. 4, 8, 12, 13, 18, and 20 appear to be invalid as they are merely denials of Plaintiffs’ claims or recitations of the law. (MPA pgs. 2-8.)

Plaintiffs’ demurrer to Defendant’s answer is unopposed and sustained for the reasons stated in the moving papers. The Court construes Defendant’s lack of opposition as a concession on the merits. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4 [where nonmoving party fails to oppose a ground for a motion "it is assumed that [nonmoving party] concedes" that ground].) Moreover, the Court does not furnish legal arguments for a party. (See KCSFV I, LLC v. Florin County Water Dist. (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 1015, 1031; Nelson v. Avondale Homeowners Assn. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 857, 862.)

As this is Plaintiffs’ first challenge to Defendant’s answer, the Court will grant leave to amend.

Defendant may file an amended answer addressing the deficiencies raised in Plaintiffs’ demurrer no later than June 30, 2023. Although not required by statute or court rule, Defendant is directed to present the clerk with a copy of this ruling at the time of filing the amended answer to facilitate its filing.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)