On 10/13/2017 RITA REYES filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against DROR HAREL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH
HAREL CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTIES
DOES 1 TO 10
HAREL DROR L.
ANVARI ERIC ESQ.
3/29/2019: Minute Order
4/15/2019: Minute Order
10/13/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)
at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Jury Trial)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)Read MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by RITA REYES (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC679689 Hearing Date: November 12, 2019 Dept: 5
dror harel, et al.,
Case No.: BC679689
Hearing Date: November 12, 2019
[TENTATIVE] order RE:
DEMURRERs TO DEFENDANTs’ ANSWERs TO COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Rita Reyes (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Dror Harel (“Defendant”) and Harel Construction Specialties following a motor vehicle collision. Plaintiff dismissed Harel Construction Specialties on October 31, 2019. Now, Plaintiff demurs to the following affirmative defenses in Defendant’s answer:
#2 – Failure to state sufficient facts to support prayer for prejudgment interest
#3 – Failure to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action
#4 – Complaint is barred by Code of Civil Procedure section 474
#5 – Contributory negligence
#6 – Failure to mitigate damages
#8 – Negligence by third parties
#9 – Assumption of risk
#10 – Non-economic damages are barred by the Personal Responsibility Act of 1996
Plaintiff’s demurrer to the eighth, ninth, and tenth affirmative defenses in Defendant’s answer is sustained with leave to amend. The demurrer is otherwise overruled.
In the answer to the complaint, a defendant must allege facts to support any matter the defendant will bear the burden to prove at trial. (Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 240.) A plaintiff may demur to an answer if: “(a) The answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense. [¶] (b) The answer is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, “uncertain” includes ambiguous and unintelligible. [¶] (c) Where the answer pleads a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the answer whether the contract is written or oral.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.20.)
Defendant need not allege facts to support any affirmative defenses that negate elements of Plaintiff’s claims, as Plaintiff will bear the burden of proof on those matters at trial. For this reason, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s demurrer to the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth affirmative defenses in Defendants’ answers. These affirmative defenses merely deny elements that Plaintiff must prove at trial.
In the eighth, ninth, and tenth affirmative defenses, however, Defendants assert matters they will bear the burden to prove at trial. Defendant has not alleged any facts in support of these affirmative defenses. The Court therefore sustains the demurrer to these affirmative defenses. As Defendant might cure the deficiencies in the answer by alleging facts to support the affirmative defenses, the Court grants Defendant leave to amend. (See Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.)
Conclusion and order
Plaintiff’s demurrer to the eighth, ninth, and tenth affirmative defenses in Defendant’s answer is sustained with leave to amend. Defendant is ordered to file an amended answer within twenty (20) days of notice. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.
DATED: November 12, 2019 ___________________________
Stephen I. Goorvitch
Judge of the Superior Court