Plaintiff’s demurrer to Defendant Michael Sibilia’s answer; Motion to strike
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 16 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj (covering this calendar for Judge Parrett) Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408-882-2270
DATE: July 29, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. To contest the ruling, you must call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. You must also contact the other side before 4:00 P.M. to inform them that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)
**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**
9:00 A.M. LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING Line 1 25CV474179 Lee Booi Lim et Click LINE 1 or scroll down for ruling. al. v. Anavarathan Ayyaswamy et al. Line 2 25CV477783 Joseph Rostam Click LINE 2 or scroll down for ruling. v. Daniel Gonzales et al. Line 3 25CV477818 K&L Supply Click LINE 3 or scroll down for ruling. Co., Inc. v. Yeo Lee Line 4 24CV434186 Guillermo Plaintiff’s motion to compel initial responses to requests for production. Bautista v. FCA (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).)
Notice is proper and the motion is US, LLC. opposed by defendant. Defendant did not respond to the request by the statutory deadline. Defendant’s opposition contends the motion is moot because defendant has now responded to the requests for production. Defendant contends sanctions should be denied because any delay was due to an informal agreement between the law firms regarding extensions to discovery requests. Plaintiff did not file a reply. The motion is DENIED AS MOOT, and the request for sanctions is DENIED.
The court will prepare the order.
Calendar Line 2 Case Name: Joseph Rostam v. Daniel Gonzales et al. Case No.: 25CV477783
At issue is Plaintiff Joseph Rostam’s demurrer to and motion to strike Defendant Michael Sibilia’s answer to the complaint on the grounds that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute valid defenses, contains boilerplate affirmative defenses, and includes irrelevant, uncertain, and legally insufficient allegations. (Notice at 2:3-4)
Factual Allegations
The initial and still operative complaint alleges that Plaintiff entered into a Residential Purchase Agreement in April 2025 to purchase property at 452 Goodyear Street, San Jose, California, for $1,022,500. Defendant Michael A. Sibilia acted as the listing agent representing the sellers, Daniel and Virginia Gonzales and Brian and Philana Werness. Plaintiff was represented by Intero Real Estate Services and its agent Payal Kir. (Complaint ¶ 2, Exhibit A.)
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?”
The purchase agreement provided that the property would be sold on an “as-is” basis. Plaintiff was given the right to investigate the property. The sellers provided inspection reports, including a property inspection report, pest control report, and roof inspection report, though the home and pest inspection reports did not include the garage. The sellers also provided a transfer disclosure statement and seller property questionnaire. (Complaint ¶ 2, Exhibit A.)
The complaint alleges that Plaintiff discovered concealed material defects after taking possession, including: a cracked and uneven garage floor; foundation failures; deteriorating interior walls; a crooked or sagging roof; and a non-functional pool heater and jacuzzi system. The complaint alleges Plaintiff made multiple written and verbal requests to Defendants and their agent prior to close of escrow to (1) clear debris from the garage to allow complete inspection and (2) to disclose any known issues relating to the garage foundation, roofline, and structural systems. (Complaint ¶ 2.)
Plaintiff filed the Complaint in October 2025, alleging causes of action for: (1) fraudulent concealment, (2) intentional and negligent misrepresentation, (3) violation of California transfer disclosure statutes, (4) breach of contract.
Legal Standards
A demurrer reaches defects appearing on the face of the pleading or matters subject to judicial notice. All properly pleaded facts are accepted as true. A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleading, not the truth of the allegations or the plaintiff’s ability to prove them. (Saunders v. Superior Court (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 832, 837-840.)
The sufficiency of an answer depends on the complaint to which it responds and must be read in conjunction with the complaint. The answer need only minimally advise the opposing party of the nature of the defense, even if conclusory. (South Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 733; FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 385.)
A demurrer to an answer is limited to failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a 14
defense, uncertainty, or failure to allege whether a contract is written or oral. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.20.) Ultimate facts, not evidentiary facts, are required. The answer is liberally construed with reference to the complaint. (Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 47; Hoelzle v. Fresno County (1958) 159 Cal.App.2d 478, 483.)
Affirmative defenses asserting new matter must be supported by facts, not mere legal conclusions. (Department of Finance v. City of Merced (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 286, 294.) New matter consists of facts independent of the complaint that would bar recovery even if the complaint’s allegations are true. (Walsh v. West Valley Mission Community College Dist. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1546.) The critical inquiry is whether the answer raises a defense to the causes of action alleged. (Timberidge Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Santa Rosa (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 873, 880.)
“Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.) “The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) “The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437, subd. (a).)
Analysis
The answer generally denies each and every allegation and raises twelve affirmative defenses, including failure to state a cause of action, estoppel, waiver, unjust enrichment, assumption of risk, failure to mitigate, comparative negligence, “as-is” sale, and that Plaintiff conducted a complete inspection and relied on his own observations.
Plaintiff contends Defendant’s affirmative defenses should be stricken – or alternatively the entire answer should be stricken – because they merely contain boilerplate language without any factual support. More specifically, Plaintiff points to Defendant’s waiver, estoppel, laches, unclean hands, and comparative fault affirmative defenses as indicators. (Amended Motion at 3:15-4:4.)
Defendant does not substantively address Plaintiff’s arguments. Instead, Defendant discusses unsuccessful efforts to secure Plaintiff’s stipulation permitting the filing of an amended answer, and seeks leave to file a proposed amended answer attached to the opposition. (Opposition at 2:15-16.) Based on that implied concession, the demurrer to the answer is sustained. (Rooney v. Vermont Inv. Corp. (1973) 10 Cal.3d 351, 366-368; D.I. Chadbourne v. Superior Court (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].)
Defendant bears the burden of showing a reasonable possibility that the answer can be amended to state sufficient facts constituting a defense. (Campbell v. Regents of University of California (2005) 35 Cal.4th 311, 320.) Defendant’s proposed amended answer adds detailed factual allegations regarding the transaction, including: sellers provided inspection reports; the inspection reports did not include the garage; Plaintiff had unhindered access to the property; Plaintiff received advisories informing him of issues requiring investigation; Defendant 15
conducted a visual inspection and disclosed known conditions; Defendant did not have actual knowledge of the alleged defects; Plaintiff’s own broker owed fiduciary duties to investigate the property. Defendant has met the burden of showing a reasonable possibility of amendment. The court will grant leave to amend. The court expresses no opinion on the adequacy of the proposed amended answer because that pleading is not the focus of the instant demurrer and motion to strike.
Conclusion & Order
Plaintiff’s demurrer to Defendant Sibilia’s answer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Any amended answer must be filed and served no later than August 28, 2026.
Plaintiff’s motion to strike is DENIED AS MOOT.
The court will prepare the order.
- oo0oo -
16