Source: https://trellis.law/ca/motion-type/general-denial-428
Timestamp: 2020-07-12 02:15:21
Document Index: 178154468

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 431', '§ 446', '§ 431', '§436', '§ 473', '§ 431', '§ 431', '§ 446', '§ 431', '§ 446', '§ 431', '§ 438', '§ 438', '§ 431', '§42402', '§42402', '§ 473', '§ 431', '§ 431', '§431', '§128', '§ 583']

A General Denial is a type of answer filed in response to a complaint. (CCP § 431.30(b)(1)). The effect of a General Denial is to, “put in issue the material allegations of the complaint.” (FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 383.)
Disputes concerning General Denials arise based on whether the plaintiff filed a verified or unverified complaint. Verification of a complaint involves either the plaintiff or, the plaintiff’s lawyer, swearing to the allegations stated in the complaint demonstrating to a court that the plaintiff investigated the charges against the defendant and are found to be of substance. (CCP § 446).
Should a plaintiff file a verified complaint, a General Denial is not sufficient to contradict the allegations stated in the same. (CCP §§ 431.30(d); 446(a).) In other words, a verified complaint must be denied positively or according to information and belief, especially when a General Denial cannot form part of a verified answer (Id.; City of Hollister v. Monterey Ins. Co. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 455, 476, fn. 19.) Otherwise, a court may, upon proper finding, strike any, “irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading” or any part of a pleading “not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court” with the added discretion of considering whether the defendant has leave to amend (CCP §436; CLD Const., Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1149.)
A Court may allow a party to amend their pleading on any terms as may be proper (CCP § 473.) The discretion a Court possess should be exercised liberally to permit amendments of pleadings, especially if the motion to do so is timely made and granting such motion would not result in prejudice to the opposing party (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal. 3d 920; Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal. App 2d 527, 530).
While leave to amend an answer to assert proposed affirmative defenses, for example, is usually granted, doing so may raise certain concerns where Courts have the discretion to deny such amendments unless a showing of mistake or other sufficient excuse for changing the facts. (Vallejo Develop. Co. v. Beck Develop. Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 929, 946; State of Calif. ex rel. Metz v. CCC Information Services Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 402, 412.)
Nevertheless, defendants can answer unverified complaints, limited civil cases, or complaints whose amount does not exceed $1,000 with a General Denial, which places material allegations of the complaint fully at issue (CCP §§ 431.30(d); 431.40; Advantec Group, Inc. v. Edwin's Plumbing Co., Inc. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 621, 627). To the extent a plaintiff wishes to move for judgment on the pleadings yet filed an unverified complaint, courts will find the case at issue should defendant answer the complaint with a General Denial. “The answer contains a general denial of the allegations of the complaint; and as the pleadings were not verified, this was sufficient to put the plaintiff upon proof of all the facts necessary to entitle him to recover […] The case stands precisely in the position that it would if the complaint contained no allegation upon the subject.” (Hastings v. Dollarhide (1861) 18 Cal. 390, 391.) A General Denial may simply state, “Defendant denies each and every allegation in plaintiff’s complaint.” (See Cal. Jud. Council Form PLD-050.)
Useful Rulings on General Denial
VASISHT VS SHARMA
Granted with 20 days leave to amend the Answer. The Answer is unverified and fails to comply with CCP § 431.30(d) and § 446. Defendants also do not dispute that the affirmative defenses asserted therein lacks sufficient facts. Under CCP § 431.30, the answer to the complaint must contain 1) the general or specific denial of the material allegations of the complaint controverted by the defendant; a...
..more, when the complaint is verified, the answer must be verified, defendant must attach a statement, under oath or penalty of perjury, “that the same is true of his [or her] own knowledge, except as to the matters which are therein stated on his or her information or belief, as to those matters that he or she believes it to be true.” (CCP § 446.) Defendants do not deny that the Answer they filed...
In Re The Betty L. Sutton Revocable Trust dated August 20,1982
PLT - Herbert W Sutton Motion to Strike Answer Plaintiff Herbert W. Sutton seeks an order striking the general denial (page 2, lines 5-14) from the verified amended answer filed on 3/1/2019 by defendants Sharlene A. Liebengood and Nancy J. Christensen, individually and as Co-Trustees of The Betty L. Sutton Irrevocable Trust, dated May 1, 2004. In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks an order striking...
..ef of the defendant.” Code Civ. Proc., § 431.30(d). “A general denial is not appropriate in a verified answer.” City of Hollister v. Monterey Ins. Co. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 455, 476, fn. 19. Defendants’ verified amended answer includes both a general denial and specific denials and admissions. Inclusion of a general denial is improper and the motion is granted. Defendants’ general denial on page...
River Park Properties III v. Axa Equitable Life InsuranceCompany
Motion: Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings against Answer of Defendant Axa Equitable Life Insurance Company Tentative Ruling: To deny the motion for judgment on the pleadings against the answer of defendant Axa Equitable Life Insurance Company. (Code Civ. Proc. § 438, subd. (c)(1).) Explanation: Under Code of Civil Procedure section 438, subdivision (c)(1), “The motion provided for i...
..is in the nature of a general demurrer to the answer, and the motion must be denied if the answer raises a material issue or sets up affirmative matter constituting a defense. Such a motion does not operate as a special demurrer. Uncertainty and ambiguities must be specifically raised by proper procedure. Where the answer, fairly construed, suggests that the defendant may have a good defense, a mo...
Moneygram Payment Systems, Inc. v. 97 Cent and MoreDiscount Store
Motion: Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Tentative Ruling: To deny plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to defendant Andi’s answer. (Code Civ. Proc. § 438.) Explanation: Under Code of Civil Procedure section 438, “A party may move for judgment on the pleadings… The motion provided for in this section may only be made on one of the following grounds: (A) If the moving...
..n the complaint, and indeed fails to even set forth any affirmative defenses. However, the answer does include a general denial of all of the allegations in the unverified complaint. (See Answer, p. 1, ¶ 3 a.) “If the complaint … is not verified, a general denial is sufficient but only puts in issue the material allegations of the complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.30, subd. (d).) Courts have hel...
PPL OF THE STATE OF CAL., ET AL. VS. FLINTRIDGE TREE, ET AL
People v Flintridge Tree Care, Inc. MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ ANSWERS (2) Calendar: 10 Case No: EC067704 Hearing Date: 2/1/19 Action Filed: 1/23/18 Trial: 6/24/19 MP: Plaintiff People of the State of California ex rel. South Coast Air Quality Management District RP: None ALLEGATIONS: In this action, Plaintiff People of the State of California ex rel. South Coast Air Quality Management Di...
..lleges that Defendants used wood chipper or grinders without a valid license to operate them. The complaint, filed January 23, 2018, alleges causes of action for violation of District Rule 203: (1) strict liability – Health & Safety Code §42402; (2) negligent emission of air contaminants – Health & Safety Code §42402.1(a); (3)knowing emission of an air contaminant and failure to take corrective a...
FRANCES PARDO VS PARDEEP SINGH, ET AL.
Pardo v. Singh, et al. Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer by Defendant Pardeep Singh, filed on 10/11/2019 is GRANTED. Defendant is to file the Amended Answer within 5 days. The Court may allow a party to amend any pleading on any terms as may be proper. Code Civ. Proc. § 473. The Court’s discretion is to be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. Nestle v. Santa Monica...
..efendant Singh filed an answer in which he specifically answered paragraph by paragraph and made several factual admissions. Approximately a month later, Defendant obtained counsel, who now seeks to file an answer containing a general denial and asserting a number of affirmative defenses. Here, it is clear that Defendant should be permitted to amend the answer to assert the proposed affirmative d...
Recent Rulings on General Denial
Civil - Unlimited (36)
Colleen Sterne (32)
Todd D. Irby (20)
Thomas Anderle (53)
Los Angeles County, CA (231)
Placer County, CA (29)
Riverside County, CA (12)
San Diego County, CA (81)
San Francisco County, CA (60)
Santa Barbara County, CA (157)
LYNN MICHELE ESQUIVEL VS STATER BROS. MARKETS, ET AL.
A general denial is effective to controvert all material allegations of an unverified complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.30, subd. (d).) Anything less than a general denial of the whole complaint is a “qualified” or “specific” denial. A defendant can direct his or her denials to specific sentences, paragraphs, of parts of the complaint. Although not widely used, a defendant can also effectively deny allegations in the complaint by alleging contrary or inconsistent facts.
Without waiving the foregoingobjections, Responding Party responds as follows: [¶] General Denial. Responding Party’s general denial is made pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure § 431.30. Responding Party raised various affirmative defenses in its Answer for the purpose ofpreserving their use at trial. Responding Party further reserves the right to assert any affirmativedefense at trial that are supported by the evidence.” The amended response to FI No. 15.1 is (bolding omitted): “General Denial.
Defendant Raul Richardson filed a general denial on 3-27-19. On May 24, 2019, plaintiff sought to enter default against The Apartment Management Experts LLC but the clerk rejected same because items 5 a-c were incomplete. It should also be noted that this Request to Enter Default does not provide any information showing to whom the Request to Enter Default was mailed under the Declaration of Mailing.
Spriggs must file his general denial forthwith. A case management conference is scheduled for August 28 at 10:15 a.m. Background According to the complaint, in 2018 Plaintiff and Defendants had an oral agreement to form a joint venture to extract and refine THC oil, but the deal unraveled. Complt. ¶¶ 19, 30 [ROA # 1]. Plaintiff's suit names all the alleged prospective joint venturers.
Nakashimi (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 384 [a general denial puts in issue the material allegations of the complaint; court was considering whether general denial put at issue new matter for a motion for summary judgment].) Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30 subdivision (g) provides that the various affirmative defenses must be separately stated and must refer to the causes of action to which they relate “in a manner by which they may be intelligently distinguished.”
An answer may include a general denial, specific denial or new matter constituting an affirmative defense. CCP §431.30. A general denial in an answer puts in issue the material allegations of the complaint, including all essential elements of the claims. Advantac Group, Inc. v. Edwin’s Plumbing Co., Inc. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 621, 627. Although the defendant should aver “carefully and with as much detail” as possible, allegations should be liberally construed. FPI Development, Inc. v.
As to the General Denial: There is nothing that requires the specificity requested by Plaintiff.
Defendant answered the complaint with a general denial, and asserted the following affirmative defenses: (a) failure to state a cause of action; (b) failure to meet a condition precedent; (c) no basis for injunctive relief for lack of irreparable harm; and (d) lack of standing to appoint a receiver. (See Answer.) Only the second affirmative defense is facially relevant to the instant cause of action.
CAPITAL ONE BANK V. JOHN AVALOS
General denial answer filed 6/18/19. Was set for trial 4/7/20 during quarantine period. Defendant Avalos on 6/13/20 filed letter (not in pleading format) to Court. Parties to meet and confer on how to proceed.
Nakashimi (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 384 (a general denial puts in issue the material allegations of the complaint; court was considering whether general denial put at issue new matter for a motion for summary judgment).) Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(g) provides that the various affirmative defenses must be separately stated and must refer to the causes of action to which they relate “in a manner by which they may be intelligently distinguished.”
DISCOVER BANK V. LEMIER
Accordingly, when a complaint alleges a common count to recover for a sum due on a book account, and, as occurred here, the complaint is answered by a general denial, this places in issue every entry in the book account. The defendant is therefore entitled to attack each of the entries "to show that the plaintiff has no right to recover or to recover to the extent that he claims." (Aetna Carpet Co. v. Penzner, supra, 102 Cal.App.2d at p. 860, 228 P.2d 347; see also, Bridges v.
U.S. BANK N.A. V. RANDALL
Namely, (1) the FAA sets forth sufficient facts to constitute a defense, even if the affirmative defenses were insufficiently pled, because the FAA contains a general denial (See People ex rel.
ANDREW CLEMMONS VS BRIAN SPRINKLES
As noted, the requests for admission at issue here seek admissions with respect to Uber’s general denial and its forty-two affirmative defenses. The Court concludes that, in this context, the interrogatory is unreasonably cumulative and duplicative of Form Interrogatory No. 15.1, to which Uber has already responded.
Plaintiff’s motion indicates that on June 22, 2020 it “will move” the court for an order striking the eleven affirmative defenses raised in Defendant’s Answer (in fact the Defendant entered a General Denial) on grounds that the Defendant’s affirmative defenses justify sanctions under CCP §128.7. As of June 15, 2020 the Plaintiff had not filed a separate motion asking this court to strike one or more of the affirmative defenses stated in the Defendant’s General Denial.
NORMAN KLETECKA VS REGINA MARIE AIREY
The answer consisted of a general denial and twenty affirmative defenses. While the Court cannot locate a First Amended Answer, Gina Airey Consulting, Inc. filed a Second Amended Answer on 3/10/20. The SAA includes a general denial and ten affirmative defenses. Demurrer to Answer Plaintiff demurs to Gina Airey Consulting, Inc.’s SAA, contending the first through tenth affirmative defenses fail to state a defense and are uncertain.
PHILLIPS VS. POGUE
HEARING ON MOTION TO STRIKE GENERAL DENIAL FILED BY MICHAEL R. PHILLIPS * TENTATIVE RULING: * Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to strike the answer filed on behalf of Persian Rose LLC is granted. The answer was filed by Michael Pogue on behalf of himself and the LLC. Mr. Pogue is not a lawyer. He may represent himself in pro per, but he may not represent a corporation such as this LLC.
FRANCISCO SIOSON VS. WELLS FARGO
(See, Answer and General Denial, filed on 1-3-18.) And as is discussed further below, it is axiomatic that the issues on which summary judgment can be granted or denied are limited by the pleadings. The Court notes that the issue of how the confirmation of Ms. Sioson’s Chapter 11 plan affects defendant BSI’s current right to foreclose is still murky. In defendants’ opening separate statement, filed on November 19, 2019, defendants describe the Chapter 11 bankruptcy as “still pending.” (Fact No. 67.)
CBS PROPERTIES, LLC V. LIBERTY MORTGAGE ACCEPTANCE CO.
denial; and the motion failed to include the notice of the tentative ruling procedure required by Local Rule 7.10.05(C)(1).
U.S. BANK V. COMER
On November 18, 2019, Maxwell filed a proof of service stating he served a general denial on Wells Fargo’s counsel on November 15, 2019. The general denial, however, has not been filed. Wells Fargo now seeks summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication. No opposition has been filed. As the moving party, Wells Fargo has the initial burden to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ.
The original response to FI No. 15.1 is: “(a) The general denial was made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30 which permits a general denial to an unverified complaint. All affirmative defenses were pled so as not to be waived. Responding Party denies negligence and disputes damages.
. § 583.220(b),) The Petersons argue that AMI made a general appearance in the action essentially by answering the Petersons’ complaint with a general denial and afﬁrmative defenses. The Petersons base this contention on the Pre—Trial Order No, 1 (“PTO #1”), which was entered on March 29, 2017. (See Declaration of Matthew Haulk, Exhibit 2.)