UBS Bank v. Sris Sinnathamby

answer asserts thirteen defenses: (1) failure to state a claim; (2) statute of limitations; (3) comparative negligence; (4) third party responsibility; (5) failure to mitigate damages; (6) assumption of the risk; (7) estoppel; (8) waiver; (9) unclean hands; (10) laches; (11) in pari delicto; (12) non-economic damages; and (13) right to amend.

For an affirmative defense to survive a demurrer, it must only plead the ultimate fact and give notice to the opposing party of a potentially meritorious defense. (See, Welch v. Derian (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 750, 754; Hata, supra, 31 Cal.App.4th 1791, 1804-05.)

DCH's first affirmative defense, failure to state a claim, and its thirteenth affirmative defense, right to amend, do not apply because the Court has determined that SOA stated a claim for indemnity in its cross-complaint. However, DCH's other defenses claim the ultimate facts of the defenses they assert, and therefore state a defense to SOA's cross-complaint. Therefore, SOA's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings must fail. The Court notes that SOA's arguments, brought on a motion for summary judgment and properly supported by admissible evidence, may have succeeded. The legal standard on a Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings makes it extremely difficult for the moving party to prevail if the defendant filed a proper answer.

Conclusion

SOA's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.

Ruling- Default Judgment UBS Bank v. Sris Sinnathamby Case No. 24SMCV01855 Hearing Date: September 9, 2026 Defaulting Defendants: Sris Sinnathamby

Plaintiff's initial complaint was properly served on Sinnathamby by publication pursuant to a Court order on December 12, 2025, December 19, 2025, December 26, 2025, and January 2, 2026. Plaintiff filed a request for court judgment form CIV-100, proposed judgment form JUD-100, declarations containing a summary of the case and evidence of damages, and proof of publication. Plaintiff requests $18,325.00 in attorneys' fees in this matter. Attorneys' fees on default judgment are calculated pursuant to California Rules of Court 3.214(a).

For the Court to grant Default judgment against Defendant Michael Sean Devereux, Plaintiff must: - File an updated proposed judgment form JUD-100 reflecting the updated attorneys' fees calculation; - File an updated request for court Judgment form CIV-100 reflecting the updated attorneys' fees calculation; and - File an updated declaration reflecting the updated attorneys' fees calculation.

This hearing is Continued until October 10, 2026, for Plaintiff to file the remainder of the default judgment packet.

Case Number: 26SMCV00287 Hearing Date: September 9, 2026 Dept: P Tentative Ruling Fire Insurance Exchange v. HDS IP Holdings, LLC, et al., Case no. 26SMCV00287 Red-White's Demurrer with Motion to Strike Hearing Date: September 9, 2026

Background

This is a subrogation action. Plaintiff Fire Insurance Exchange ("Fire Insurance") sues Defendants HDS IP Holding, LLC ("HDS") and Red-White Valve Corp. ("Red-White") for strict products liability. Fire Insurance alleges that HDS sold, distributed, or installed a water valve that Red-White designed or manufactured and which was part of a tankless water heater system on Fire Insurance's insured's property located at 1814 Penmar Ave., Venice, CA. (First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), P.P. 2, 4-5.) Fire Insurance alleges that a design or manufacturing defect in the valve and/or the water heater caused a flood at Fire Insurance's insured's property on November 28, 2023. (FAC, P. 13.)

On January 22, 2026, Fire Insurance filed the initial complaint. On March 11, 2026, Fire Insurance filed the operative First Amended Complaint. On June 1, 2026, HDS answered. On June 10, 2026, Red-White filed this demurrer and motion to strike. On August 25, 2026, Fire Insurance filed opposition. On September 1, 2026, Red-White replied.

Arguments

Red-White demurs to the entire FAC, arguing that it fails to state a claim for strict products liability because it does not identify which Red-White product allegedly failed or how it failed. (Demurrer, p. 5.) Red-White also argues that Fire Insurance's products liability claim fails because it does not clearly identify what theory of products liability it is pursuing. (Id. at pp. 6-7.) Finally, Red-White argues that the complaint is uncertain. (Id. at p. 7.)