On 03/15/2016 CRAIG ROSS, filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CAL STATE UNIV. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GERALD ROSENBERG, LISA HART COLE, H. JAY FORD III and BOBBI TILLMON. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
LISA HART COLE
H. JAY FORD III
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CAL. STATE UNIVERSIT
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CAIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
KAMALA D HARRIS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CA
7/13/2016: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
6/23/2017: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
10/20/2017: Memorandum of Points & Authorities
1/2/2018: Notice of Ruling
4/16/2018: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
5/16/2018: Case Management Statement
6/5/2018: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
7/25/2018: Notice of Ruling
2/26/2019: Minute Order
at 08:30 AM in Department O; Case Management Conference - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
Opposition (Joint Opposition to Defendant's Failure to File and Serve an Updated Case Management Statement and Request for Continuance of CMC); Filed by Natalie Operstein (Plaintiff); Craig Ross (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Ruling; Filed by Board of Trustees of Caifornia State University (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Memorandum of Points & Authorities; Filed by Board of Trustees of Caifornia State University (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Request for Judicial Notice; Filed by Board of Trustees of Caifornia State University (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10); Filed by Board of Trustees of Caifornia State University (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Declaration (DECLARATION OF DEMURRING OR MOVING PART REGARDING MEET AND CONFER); Filed by Board of Trustees of Caifornia State University (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Memorandum (MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE); Filed by Board of Trustees of Caifornia State University (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Motion to Strike (not initial pleading); Filed by Board of Trustees of Caifornia State University (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Craig Ross (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department K; Unknown Event Type - HeldRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 am in Department WEK, Gerald Rosenberg, Presiding; Affidavit of Prejudice - CompletedRead MoreRead Less
Minute order entered: 2016-03-24 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
CCP 170.6 Application Filed ( AGAINST JUDGE ROSENBERG); Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro PerRead MoreRead Less
Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Craig Ross (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Summons Filed; Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro PerRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Natalie Operstein (Plaintiff); Craig Ross (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Summons; Filed by PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Complaint FiledRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: SC125558 Hearing Date: March 17, 2020 Dept: O
SUBJECT: MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Craig Ross
RESP. PARTY: Defendant Board of Trustees of the California State University
Plaintiff Craig Ross’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.
I. Applicable Law
“A plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is analogous to a plaintiff’s demurrer to an answer and is evaluated by the same standards. The motion should be denied if the defendant’s pleadings raise a material issue or set up affirmative matter constituting a defense; for purposes of ruling on the motion, the trial court must treat all of the defendant’s allegations as being true.” People ex rel. Becerra v. Superior Court (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 486, 499. An answer fails to raise any material issue or state a defense where it expressly or substantially admits or does not sufficiently deny all the material allegations of the complaint and sets up no new matter that is sufficient to bar or defeat the action. See Adjustment Corp. v. Hollywood Hardware & Paint Co. (1939) 35 Cal.App.2d 566, 569-570.
“An affirmative defense must be pleaded in the same manner as if the facts were set forth in a complaint. In other words, the general requirement of stating the ultimate facts applies and, where particularity in pleading is necessary in a complaint, it is equally necessary in an affirmative defense involving the issue.” 5 Witkin, Cal. Proc. (5th ed. 2008) Plead, § 1082; see also Timberidge Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Santa Rosa (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 873, 879-880 (demurrer to answer asks whether the answer raises a defense to the plaintiff's stated cause of action). Pleadings are meant “to inform ... adversaries of the nature of the cause which they state against them with sufficient particularity to advise them of the issue they will be required to meet at the trial of the action.” Lewis v. Fahn (1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 95, 100. Facts that establish a complete discharge of defendant's previously accrued liability must be specially pleaded. 5 Witkin, supra, § 1082.
II. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED
Defendant’s answer contains both a general denial of all facts alleged in the TAC and affirmative defenses constituting a defense. Defendant’s general denial of the complaint requires a denial of Plaintiff’s MJP of the answer. See People ex rel. Becerra, supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at 499 (“Preliminarily, the trial court should have denied judgment on the pleadings for the simple reason that the State had denied all of the [plaintiffs’] allegations”). An MJP to an answer must be denied if the answer contains a general denial or sets up new matter with a proper affirmative defense. Id.
In addition, Ross lacks standing to challenge the sufficiency of the 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th affirmative defenses pled in the First Amended Answer. These affirmative defenses expressly state they are only being asserted to causes of action brought by Operstein or FEHA claims, which are only asserted by Operstein.
However, Ross has standing to challenge the remaining defenses identified in his notice of motion (3rd, 4th, 6th, 9th through 16th, 22nd and 25th affirmative defenses). Each of those challenged defenses indicate they are being asserted to “the TAC and each cause of action alleged therein,” which would include the loss of consortium claim.
The 25th “affirmative defense” is not an affirmative defense but a reservation of the right to assert additional affirmative defenses if new information is discovered. As such, it is not subject to judgment on the pleadings.
The 3rd (legitimate business reason), 4th (Government Code §945.6—failure to comply with Government Claims Act, 6th (failure to exhaust administrative remedies) 9th through 16th (unclean hands, pre-existing injuries/conditions, failure to avoid or mitigate, offset, ratification, collateral source, immunity from punitive damages, waiver) and 22nd affirmative defenses are sufficiently pleaded (statute of frauds). Defendant is only required to plead ultimate facts, not evidentiary facts, which it does. See 5 Witkin, Cal. Proc. (5th ed. 2008) Plead, §1082. Defendant is also not required to plead facts in support of these defenses with heightened specificity akin to a fraud claim. Plaintiff does not cite to any authority applying a heightened standard of pleading to the subject affirmative defenses.
Plaintiff argues that the defenses are meritless. However, an MJP only tests the sufficiency of the pleading and all factual allegations are accept as true. See People ex rel. Becerra, supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at 499. The merits of the defenses themselves are not at issue.