1The topic of this issue of the newsletter is the filing of an answer to a civil complaint in California.There are two general types of civil complaints in California, unverified and verified. Most complaintsare unverified unless a particular statute or code provides otherwise, although any complaint may beverified at the option of plaintiff. The rules discussed here also apply to cross-complaints.If a complaint is verified the answer must be verified. And any answer to a complaint by a governmentalentity must be verified. See
Code of Civil Procedure
§ 446.A verified answer must admit or deny each and every paragraph of the complaint, and must also contain averification signed by the defendant or defendants stating that they have read the answer and everythingcontained therein is true and correct to the best of their knowledge. The verification must be signed under penalty of perjury. Note that failure to file a verified answer when one is required will subject the answer to a motion to strike on the grounds that it is not verified.As stated earlier, defendant must admit or deny each and every paragraph of the complaint. Admissionsor denials generally consist of the following:A. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 1. (example only).B. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 2. (example only).C.Defendant has no information or belief that the allegations of paragraph 3 are true so defendantdenies them. (example only).Any allegations of a verified complaint that are not specifically denied are deemed admitted.An unverified complaint may be answered by a general denial in which the defendant(s) generally denyall of the allegations of the complaint.An answer should also contain specific affirmative defenses tailored to the individual case. An answer that contains nothing but “boilerplate” affirmative defenses is vulnerable to a general demurrer on thegrounds that the answer fails to state facts sufficient to state any defenses to the complaint.The various affirmative defenses must be separately stated; and must refer to the causes of action towhich they relate "in a manner by which they may be intelligently distinguished."
Code of Civil Procedure
§ 431.30(g); see
Hata v. Los Angeles County Harbor/UCLA Med. Ctr.
(1995) 31 Cal.App. 4th1791, 1805.Failure to separately state the various affirmative defenses and refer to the causes of action to which theyrelate could be grounds for a special demurrer on the grounds of uncertainty.In
FPI Development, Inc vs. A1 Nakashima,
(1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 384, the court held that theaffirmative defenses pled in an answer to a complaint must be pled in the same fashion,
and with thesame specificity
, as a cause of action in a complaint. Because conclusory allegations are not admitted bydemurrer, and because conclusory allegations have no pleading value, conclusory and “boilerplate”affirmative defenses are insufficient. (emphasis added.)
Code of Civil Procedure
§ 430.10 states, in pertinent part: “The party against whom a complaint or
cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds...(e) the pleading does not state facts sufficient toconstitute a cause of action. (f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, “uncertain”includes ambiguous and unintelligible. (g) In an action founded upon a contract, it cannot be ascertainedfrom the pleading whether the contract is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct.” Thus the answering party may use the same objections as can be raised in a demurrer to the complaint in their answer to thecomplaint.An answer should contain whatever denials or affirmative defenses are necessary to controvert thematerial allegations of the complaint. Its function is to put the case "at issue" as to all important mattersalleged in the complaint that defendant does not want to admit. An answer cannot be used to claimaffirmative relief; a cross-complaint must be filed. See
Code of Civil Procedure
§ 431.30.In pleading the statute of limitations, "it is not necessary to state the facts showing the defense, but it may be stated generally that the cause of action is barred by the provisions of Section (giving the number of the section and subdivision thereof, if it is so divided, relied upon) of the Code of Civil Procedure."
Codeof Civil Procedure
§ 458.The answering party should be sure to cite the specific statute and subdivision when pleading the statuteof limitations in the answer as a pleading that fails to specify both the applicable statute and subdivision"raise(s) no issue and present(s) no defense." See
Davenport v. Stratton
(1944) 24 Cal 2d 232, 246, 247.see also
Brown v. World Church
(1969) 272 Cal.App. 2d 684, 691, plea that action barred by
Code of Civil Procedure
§ 339 not sufficient because that statute contains several subdivisions.Failure to specify a statute's subdivision has been overlooked, however, where it is the only subdivision"that could by any possibility be applicable to this case."
Churchill v. Woodworth
(1906) 148 Cal 669,676, (dealing with Code of Civil Procedure § 339); see also
Hydro-Mill Co., Inc. v. Hayward, Tilton & Rolapp Ins. Assocs., Inc.
(2004) 115 Cal.App. 4th 1145, 1164,1165, (same.)If you enjoy this newsletter, tell others about it. They can subscribe by visiting the following link:http://www.legaldocspro.net/newsletter.htmHave a great week and thanks for being a subscriber.Yours Truly,Stan BurmanThe author of this newsletter, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California civillitigation since 1995.The author’s website:http://www.legaldocspro.net View numerous sample document sold by the author:http://www.scribd.com/legaldocspro © 2012 Stan Burman. All rights reserved.
DISCLAIMER:Please note that the author of this newsletter, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this newsletter is NOT intended to constitute legaladvice.These materials and information contained in this newsletter have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in thisnewsletter is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between thesender and receiver. Subscribers and any other readers should not act upon this information withoutseeking professional counsel.
Вознаградите свое любопытство
Все, что вы хотели прочитать.
Когда угодно. Где угодно. На любом устройстве.
Без обязательств. Отменить можно в любой момент.