The topic of this ex-zine article is a brief discussion of filing of an answer to a civil complaint in California.
There are two general types of civil complaints in California, unverified and verified. Most complaints are unverified unless a particular statute or code provides otherwise, although any complaint may be verified 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 governmental entity must be verified. See Code of Civil Procedure Section 446. Note that this rule only applies to unlimited civil cases, where the demand of the complaint exceeds $25,000.00.
A verified answer must admit or deny each and every paragraph of the complaint, and must also contain a verification signed by the defendant or defendants stating that they have read the answer and everything contained 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 verified complaint. Admissions or denials generally consist of the following which are examples only:
A. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 1.
B. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 2.
C. Defendant has no information or belief that the allegations of paragraph 3 are true so defendant denies them.
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 deny all 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 the grounds 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 to which they relate "in a manner by which they may be intelligently distinguished." Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(g).
Failure to separately state the various affirmative defenses and refer to the causes of action to which they relate could be grounds for a special demurrer on the grounds of uncertainty.
A California Court of Appeal has ruled that the affirmative defenses pled in an answer to a complaint must be pled in the same fashion, and with the same specificity, as a cause of action in a complaint. Because conclusory allegations are not admitted by demurrer, and because conclusory allegations have no pleading value, conclusory and "boilerplate" affirmative defenses are insufficient.
Code of Civil Procedure Section 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 to constitute 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 ascertained from 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 the complaint.
An answer should contain whatever denials or affirmative defenses are necessary to controvert the material allegations of the complaint. Its function is to put the case "at issue" as to all important matters alleged in the complaint that defendant does not want to admit. An answer cannot be used to claim affirmative relief; a cross-complaint must be filed. See Code of Civil Procedure Section 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." Code of Civil Procedure Section 458.
The answering party should be sure to cite the specific statute and subdivision when pleading the statute of 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."
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."
If you enjoy this article, tell others about it.
Yours Truly,
Stan Burman
Please note that the author of this article, 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 article is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.
These materials and information contained in this article have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this article is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the sender and receiver. Any readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.
0 comments:
Post a Comment