Case Number: BC620810??? Hearing Date: December 19, 2016??? Dept: 39
Gary Van Den Berg v. Batteryworx, Inc., BC620810
Plaintiff, Gary Van Den Berg’s Motion of Judgment on the Pleadings for Defendant?s Answer to Complaint: GRANTED as to the eleventh affirmative defense only. The motion is otherwise DENIED.
Defendant Batteryworx, Inc. filed its answer on July 11, 2016, which contains a general denial and 14 affirmative defenses. Plaintiff Gary Van Den Berg moves for judgment on the pleadings as to Defendant?s second through fourteenth affirmative defenses.
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure ? 438(c)(1)(A), a plaintiff may move for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds ?that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action against the defendant and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint.? ?A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, and hence attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be judicially noticed.? (Burnett v. Chimney Sweep (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1064.) ?In deciding or reviewing a judgment on the pleadings, all properly pleaded material facts are deemed to be true, as well as all facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged.? (Fire Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 446, 452.)
Here, Plaintiff argues that the answer fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure ? 431.30(g), which provides ?[t]he defenses shall be separately stated, and the several defenses shall refer to the causes of action which they are intended to answer, in a manner by which they may be intelligibly distinguished.?
Defendant contends that is implied which defenses apply to which claims. The court will not require an amended answer based upon Code of Civil Procedure ? 431.30(g), especially because this statute does not determine whether or not an answer states facts sufficient to constitute a defense. (Code of Civ.Proc. ? 438.)
Plaintiff also argues the equitable defenses asserted in the second, third, fifth, and ninth affirmative defenses are not applicable to the claims asserted in the Complaint. As argued by Defendant, however, equitable defenses may be considered in connection with the remedies sought in a claim for violation of Business & Professions Code ? 17200. (Ticconi v. Blue Shield of California Life & Health Ins. Co. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 528, 544?45 [?the trial court has the discretion to consider equitable defenses such as unclean hands in creating the remedies authorized by Business and Professions Code section 17203.?].) Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Plaintiff does correctly contend that the eleventh affirmative defense is inapplicable, because none of Plaintiffs claims required exhaustion of administrative remedies. Defendant does not address the eleventh defense in its Opposition. The motion is GRANTED as to the eleventh affirmative defense.
The court finds the remaining affirmative defenses meet the statutory threshold for an answer and are sufficiently pled. Defendant?s answer is sufficient to put Plaintiff on notice of Defendant?s claimed defenses such that Plaintiff can prepare this case. The motion is DENIED as to the second through tenth, and twelfth through fourteenth, affirmative defenses.