What is a General Denial?

Useful Rulings on General Denial

Recent Rulings on General Denial

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

CHRISTINA GARCIA VS UPTOWN LOUNGE INC

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

RICHARDSON V. RICHARDSON

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

SIMCO SERVICES INC VS KLAREN TRADING LLC

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CITY OF BELLFLOWER VS DAVID D. NGUYEN, ET AL.

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.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BOLADIAN VS NAUGLES CORP

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

BREAKFIELD VS GI EXCELLENCE

As to the General Denial: There is nothing that requires the specificity requested by Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

PREFERRED BANK VS PREVENTION, LLC

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

SHELLY HART VS COURTNEY SULLIVAN, ET AL.

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.”

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

U.S. BANK N.A. V. RANDALL

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

CRAIG ROSS, ET AL., VS BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CAL. STATE UNIV.

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA VS. CUZINS

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 19, 2020

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.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 17, 2020

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).

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2020

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2020

U.S. BANK V. COMER

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2020

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. V. MATTHEW MAXWELL

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2020

JANICE FELDMAN ET L. V. THE VIKING CORPORATION ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 08, 2020

OAK GROVE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC VS. FIRST REPUBLIC BANK, ET AL

. § 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.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2020

WELLS FARGO BANK V. GEDDIE

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 33     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.