Ammari v. Ammari

Filed 12/24/25 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

RAZAN AMMARI, B336026

Plaintiff and Respondent. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 19SMUD02318) SAMI AMMARI,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment and orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael C. Small, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Tamer Law Corp and Steven M. Tamer for Defendant and Appellant. Dennis P. Block & Associates, Dennis P. Block, and H.G. Long for Plaintiff and Respondent.

When a defendant answers the plaintiff’s initial complaint but does not file a new answer to the first amended complaint, the original answer may serve to controvert facts reasserted in the amended complaint. Although the defendant admits new factual allegations, a default judgment cannot be taken against him or her based on allegations the original answer denied. In this case, defendant Sami Ammari filed an answer to plaintiff Razan Ammari’s original complaint but did not answer Razan’s first amended complaint. After Razan obtained a default judgment, Sami moved to set it aside. Sami appeals the order denying that motion. As we shall explain, Sami’s original answer denied essential factual allegations asserted in Razan’s first amended complaint. Without Sami admitting these allegations, the default judgment cannot stand. We thus reverse the judgment.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In 2019, Razan filed an unlawful detainer complaint against several defendants, including Sami, for possession of residential property in the City of Malibu. Razan classified the action as a limited civil case. Sami filed an answer denying several allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. In July 2020, Razan moved for leave to file a first amended complaint for unlawful detainer. The court granted Razan’s motion. Razan served—but did not file—the amended pleading. Sami filed an answer to the purported first amended complaint. Substantively, it is identical to the original answer. In January 2021, the case proceeded to a court trial. None of the defendants appeared. The court ruled in plaintiff’s favor and entered judgment against defendants for $274,137 in holdover damages. Three times, Sami moved to set aside the