Michael Helmrich vs. San Juan Unified School District

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing 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.

TENTATIVE RULING:

34-2022-00329107-CU-PO-GDS: Michael Helmrich vs. San Juan Unified School District 11/08/2023 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 53

Plaintiffs’ demurrer to all 22 affirmative defenses alleged in Defendant’s Amended Answer to Complaint was originally set for hearing on 10/11/2023 but was continued to this date to permit the parties to complete the meet-and-confer process mandated by Code of Civil Procedure §430.41. The Court has received the supplemental declaration from plaintiffs’ counsel and now rules as follows.

*** If oral argument is requested, the parties must at the time oral argument is requested notify the clerk and opposing counsel of the specific affirmative defenses that will be addressed at the hearing. Counsel are also reminded that pursuant to local rules, only limited oral argument is permitted on law and motion matters. ***

Plaintiff’s demurrer fails to comply with CRC Rule 3.1320(a), requiring each ground for demurrer be set forth in a separate paragraph and state whether it applies to the entire pleading or to the specified causes of action or defenses.

The moving memorandum of points & authorities fails to comply with the page limitations set forth in CRC Rule 3.1113(d) and moving counsel failed to timely seek leave of court prior to filing an oversized brief pursuant to Rule 3.1113(e).

Moving counsel is advised that the failure to comply with the Rules of Court may in the future result in the Court disregarding and/or striking non-compliant papers.

Factual Background

This action arises out of physical and emotional injuries allegedly suffered by a student as a result of multiple attacks by other students attending one of defendant district’s schools. The complaint asserts various negligence-based claims as well as one for breach of a mandatory duty. In response, defendant filed an answer consisting of a general denial followed by 22 affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs then filed both a demurrer and a motion to strike, both of which targeted the affirmative defenses alleged by defendant. Prior to the hearing on these motions, defendant filed an amended answer which also consisted of a general denial and 22 affirmative defenses.

Plaintiffs now demur to all 22 affirmative defenses alleged in the amended answer on the grounds that the latter “does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense,” “is uncertain” and to the extent it pleads the existence of a contract, “it cannot be ascertained whether it is written or oral.” In general, plaintiffs contend that affirmative defenses “may not simply state legal conclusions but must state supporting facts carefully and with as much detail as is required in a Complaint,” citing FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 384. The demurrer adds that leave to amend should be denied because the above-cited defects cannot be remedied.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00329107-CU-PO-GDS: Michael Helmrich vs. San Juan Unified School District 11/08/2023 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 53

Defendant school district opposes, arguing that the amended answer now includes facts sufficient to withstand demurrer and that the affirmative defenses must be pled or else they will be waived. Accordingly, defendant is justified in asserting potentially applicable defenses even if the facts supporting them are not fully known at this early stage of the litigation. The opposition also insists that this demurrer is deficient insofar as it fails to specify the particular affirmative defenses being challenged and fails to comply with CRC Rule 3.1320, requiring each ground for demurrer be set forth in a separate paragraph and state whether it applies to the entire pleading or the specified causes of action or defenses.

Legal Standards for Demurrer

A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings, raising issues of law, not fact, regarding the form or content of the opposing party’s pleading. (Code of Civil Procedure §422.10 and §589.) A demurrer may only challenge defects on the face of the pleading or from matters that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) However, the face of the pleading includes facts contained in exhibits attached thereto. (Frantz v. Blackwell (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 91, 94.)

In reviewing the sufficiency of a pleading against a general demurrer, courts treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. Matters which may be judicially noticed may also be considered. The pleading is to be given a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context. (Farmers v. Zerin (1997) 53 CaI.App.4th 445, 451.) Consideration of extrinsic evidence or facts asserted in the memorandum supporting or opposing the demurrer is improper. (Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881.)

A demurrer may be sustained only if the pleading lacks any sufficient allegations to entitle the party to relief. (Financial Corp. of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal. App. 3d 764, 778.) Courts are required to construe the pleading liberally to determine whether a cause of action or a defense has been stated, given the assumed truth of the facts pleaded.” (Picton v. Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733.) A demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pled and the sole issue raised by a general demurrer is whether the facts pled state a valid cause of action or defense - not whether they are true. (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.) Finally, a demurrer may only be sustained where it disposes of an entire cause of action or defense. (See, e.g., Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 119.)

Particularly relevant here is appellate law relating to the assertion of affirmative defenses. In FPI Development, the Third District Court of Appeal explained:

That brings us to the allegations of new matter. Numerous defenses were purportedly raised by defendants' allegations of affirmative defense. Most of these allegations fail to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00329107-CU-PO-GDS: Michael Helmrich vs. San Juan Unified School District 11/08/2023 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 53

state a defense even when liberally construed in defendants’ favor. [Cite.] Some are simply immaterial. For example, defendants allege as a conclusion that plaintiff’s claim is barred by laches, an equitable defense that has no application to the plaintiff’s legal claim. [Cite.] All of the allegations are proffered in the form of terse legal conclusions, rather than as facts “averred as carefully and with as much detail as the facts which constitute the cause of action and are alleged in the complaint.” (See Pomeroy, Code Remedies, supra, §563, at 917.) The only affirmative defenses that are mentioned in the summary judgment proceedings, fraud in the inducement and failure of consideration, are not well pled, consisting of legal conclusions, and would not have survived a demurrer. [Cites.] (FPI Development, supra, 231 Cal.App.3d at 384 (underline added for emphasis).)

With the foregoing standards in mind, the Court now turns its focus to the affirmative defenses asserted in defendant’s amended answer and the parties’ respective contentions.

Discussion

Rule 3.1320. At the outset, the Court agrees with the opposition that plaintiffs’ demurrer fails to comply with CRC Rule 3.1320, requiring each ground for demurrer be set forth in a separate paragraph and state whether it applies to the entire pleading or the specified causes of action or defenses. Although this may be a valid ground on which to overrule the present demurrer, the Court will nevertheless reluctantly address the merits of the arguments advanced by plaintiffs but all counsel are advised that they must in the future comply with all applicable Rules of Court.

Special Demurrer. As noted above, plaintiffs appear to specially demur to all 22 affirmative defenses alleged in the amended answer on the grounds that the latter “is uncertain” but the moving memorandum of points & authorities identifies only three particular affirmative which are claimed to be uncertain: Affirmative Defense Nos. 12, 15 and 22.

As pointed out in numerous rulings by this Court, current California law makes clear that demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored and should only be granted where a pleading is so muddled that a party cannot reasonably respond to the allegations. (See, e.g., Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616; Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group (2014)), Ch. 7:85.) The allegations currently found in defendant’s Affirmative Defense Nos. 12, 15 and 22 are not so muddled that it is unclear what defendant is claiming in these defenses. Accordingly, the special demurrer to Affirmative Defense Nos. 12, 15 and 22 shall be overruled but plaintiffs remain free to seek further clarity about the nature of these defenses through the use of the various discovery tools authorized by the Code of Civil Procedure.

General Demurrer. Plaintiffs also generally demur to defendant’s affirmative defenses on the grounds they fail to plead facts sufficient to constitute a defense and instead consist of mere legal

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00329107-CU-PO-GDS: Michael Helmrich vs. San Juan Unified School District 11/08/2023 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 53

conclusions without factual support.

After careful consideration of each of the 22 affirmative defenses alleged by defendant in its amended answer, the Court finds that the following are not adequately pleaded: Affirmative Defense Nos. 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20 and 22. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ demurrer to these affirmative defenses shall be sustained.

However, the demurrer to the following affirmative defenses is overruled because they are in this Court’s view sufficiently alleged with factual support: Affirmative Defense Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 16, 18 and 21. Of course, to the extent plaintiffs still believe these affirmative defenses are not supported by the facts of this case, they may proceed with appropriate discovery and if warranted, seek summary adjudication of same pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §437c.

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, plaintiffs’ special demurrer for uncertainty is OVERRULED and their general demurrer is SUSTAINED as to Affirmative Defense Nos. 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20 and 22 but OVERRULED as to affirmative defense Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 16, 18 and 21.

Where this demurrer is sustained, leave to amend is GRANTED since this is the first challenge to defendant’s answer on which the Court has had opportunity to rule. Defendant may file and serve an amended answer complaint no later than 11/22/2023. Although not required by court rule or statute, defendant is directed to present a copy of this order when the amended answer is presented for filing.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)