What is a General Denial?

Useful Resources for General Denial

Recent Rulings on General Denial

JUN WANG VS GUITAR CENTER

Defendant filed a general denial on October 24, 2019. On September 11, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admissions, Set One, Admitted and Conclusively Established and Request for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition has been filed. Before discussing the merits, the Court notes that the Motion is incomplete.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

JANINE MICHELLE YODER VS EDWARD D RAY III ET AL

On October 20, 2020, Defendant Edward Ray filed a general denial. RULING: Granted. Defendants, American national Red Cross, Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc., and Old Republic Insurance Company move to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories (set one). The court notes that although all defendants represented by moving counsel are identified, the actual form interrogatories only indicate American National Corporation as the serving party. [Declaration of Devon Mills, Ex. C.]

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

MILAN STANKOVIC VS MARVIN LEVINE, ET AL.

Defendants’ general denial puts all elements of Plaintiffs’ claims at issue, including causation and damages. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is granted as to the 3rd affirmative defense. Because this defense is encompassed by the general denial, the court does not grant leave to amend. Conclusion Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication as to Defendants’ nine affirmative defenses in Defendant’s First Amended Answer is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

JAMIE WEEKS VS JESSICA MORTAROTTI, ET AL.

The first, second, and seventh through eleventh affirmative defenses in the Answer to the First Amended Complaint, as well as the words “and specifically” contained in the General Denial, are STRICKEN. Ten (10) days to amend.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MANSOUR HASHEM ET AL VS AMANDA GLOVER

Defendant responded that same day to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories with the same above objections, and added: “Subject to and without waiving any objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party appeared in the instant action through a general denial as authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, subdivision (b)(1).

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

DANIEL FORSTER, ET AL VS. CHARLES E. JANEKE, & DOES 1-10

Plaintiffs’ Answer to Cross-Complaint Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ answer to his cross-complaint is a general denial that is not allowed in response to a verified complaint. Plaintiffs oppose on the grounds that there is no evidence that Defendant’s cross-complaint is verified, thus, a general denial is appropriate. Even if there was evidence of verification, Defendant should have addressed this issue when he responded to the pleading.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

TOM FOWLER V. ROBERT CHAMPION, ET AL.

Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ unverified general denial to the verified complaint fails to deny the facts alleged in that complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.30(d) [a general denial is insufficient to controvert a verified complaint; a verified complaint must be denied positively or according to information and belief]; City of Hollister v. Monterey Ins. Co. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 455, 476.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

MARI MENDEZ VS CHRIS JORDAN

On October 28, 2019, Defendant filed a general denial and on October 29, 2019, Defendant filed a Notice of Errata Re: General Denial correcting a typographical error. On December 9, 2020, Defendant filed the instant motion. As of the date of this hearing, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. Breach of Contract (1st COA) A motion for judgment on the pleadings is the functional equivalent to a general demurrer. (Lance Camper Mfg. Corp. v. Republic Indemnity Co. of Am. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 194, 198.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CAPITAL ONE BANK V. MASTROPIERI

Plaintiff moves for entry of judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that the complaint states a cause of action against defendant to collect the alleged debt and that defendant’s answer by general denial has been controverted by defendant’s admissions leaving defendant with no defense to the action. The proof of service in the court’s file declares that on September 8, 2020 defendant was served the moving papers and notice of this hearing by mail to his address of record.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

DAN SHERLOCK ET AL VS ERMACITY CONSTRUCTION CORP ET AL

., meanwhile, provided no facts in support of these same defenses, instead basing their responses on their general denial that they lacked any contractual relationship with Plaintiffs and performed no work on the property at issue. (Bederman Decl. Exhs. H, I, No. 15.1.) Defendants do not provide any evidence to show that these defenses have value, but rather ask the court for leave to amend. (Motion at pp. 19–20.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JANINE MICHELLE YODER VS EDWARD D RAY III ET AL

On October 20, 2020, Defendant Edward Ray filed a general denial. RULING: Denied/Moot. Plaintiff Yoder moves for a court order entering a default against Edward Ray, III, due to the failure to file any answer to the complaint. The motion was filed on July 20, 2020. Ray filed a general denial on October 20, 2020. The court record shows no default entered by the clerk prior to the submission of the general denial. The motion is now moot.

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2021

CHRISTOPHER MARTINEZ VS TOKIO LOS ANGELES LLC, ET AL.

Specifically, Defendant states that he mistakenly believed that the general denial he filed on behalf of Defendant Tokio was enough to protect his rights in this matter. (Mot., Bitar Decl., ¶ 4.) He also explains that although he acted diligently in seeking an attorney after being personally served, he had difficulty finding affordable legal representation and believed he had more time to retain an attorney. (Id. at ¶¶ 6-8.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2021

HUGO HERNANDEZ VS RYDER TRUCK RENTAL LT, ET AL.

Duran’s answer, which was filed by Duran’s counsel, contains a general denial and nine affirmative defenses. The court notes that neither the moving papers, opposition or reply have been served on Duran. It is thus unclear whether Duran is actually refusing to participate in this action or cooperate with his counsel. United does not cite any authority nor articulate why intervention is proper whereas here its insured has answered and appears to be participating in the action. (Cf. Reliance Ins. Co. v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2021

CAVALRY SPV I LLC AS ASSIGNEE OF DEPARTMENT STORES OF NATIONAL BANK AND CITIBANK NA VS GONZALEZ

The answer is not just a general denial; it is more of a narrative and raises several issues. Discovery then commenced. Plaintiff served a set of requests for admission, to which defendant failed to respond. Plaintiff now moves for an order deeming said requests for admission admitted. ROA 28-29, 31. This is actually plaintiff's second attempt to obtain the requested relief; the first motion was denied without prejudice due to defective filing and service. ROA 20. There is no timely opposition.

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2021

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

GREGORY J SCHULTZ, ET AL. VS WILLIAM J CICCOTTI, ET AL.

(“Quanta”) filed its answer to the complaint, which contains a general denial and 15 affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs now demur to Quanta’s answer arguing Quanta fails to plead any facts to support the affirmative defenses alleged, and that each defense is uncertain, ambiguous, or unintelligible. In opposition, Quanta contends its answer sufficiently pleads the 15 affirmative defenses.

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2021

EDDIE RANKIN, III VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

Further, Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, subdivision (b) does permit a general denial when a complaint is unverified. However, stating a general denial is not the same thing as stating affirmative defenses, which falls under a different standard. The court has reviewed CDCR’s answer to the Complaint. Based on this review, the court finds that the following affirmative defenses are insufficiently pled: 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 20 and 22-25.

  • Hearing

    Dec 29, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

GERARD BUTLER VS LEAH ELLEN SHERMAN

Defendant’s answer asserts a general denial and 10 affirmative defenses. Plaintiff now demurs to Defendant’s answer arguing that Defendant fails to allege any facts to support the defenses. In opposition, Defendant contends that Plaintiff failed to adequately meet and confer before filing the instant demurrer. Further, Defendant argues the answer sufficiently pleads the affirmative defenses as to apprise Plaintiff of the basis for the defenses.

  • Hearing

    Dec 29, 2020

VIRGINIA SANCHEZ, ET AL. VS PARDIS AKHAVAN

Defendant filed a general denial on 6/05/20. At this time, Defendant seeks to file a cross-complaint against Plaintiff Virginia Sanchez (“Sanchez”) for (1) indemnification, (2) apportionment of fault, and (3) declaratory relief. As of 12/15/20, the court has not received an opposition to the motion. 2.

  • Hearing

    Dec 22, 2020

ROY E STEPHENSON VS HICKINGBOTHAM LIMITED ET AL

All facts which directly tend to disprove any one or more of the averments in the complaint may be offered under the general denial. Walsh v. West Valley Mission Community College Dist., 66 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1546 (1998). i. Failure to State a Cause of Action: Porsche’s first affirmative defense is that the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. All of the facts (or absence thereof) necessary to this defense are in the complaint. So there is no need to allege facts.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

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

    Dec 17, 2020

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BROOKE LETITCHEVSKI VS DYLAN SOSA

Plaintiff does not address this argument in his opposition or present any legal authority to demonstrate that he may assert a general denial in a verified answer. Accordingly, the court GRANTS the motion in-part, and STRIKES the general denial on the first page of the Answer. C.

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

WILSON & PETTINE LLP V. TIMOTHY DELANEY

A general denial of a $192,000 lawsuit with so many affirmative defenses to a breach of contract lawsuit for fees not paid cannot be based upon the contention that “WP charged an unreasonable and unconscionable fee;” Delaney cannot sit behind a simple interrogatory inquiry with a defense contention that every fee, laboriously set out in an itemized billing, was “unreasonable and unconscionable."

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2020

SB RIVIERA HOLDINGS, LLC V. PHILIPPA DAVIS, ET AL.

The [general denial] answer was filed 6/24/20; contains 23 affirmative defenses. A Mandatory Settlement Conference is set for 8:30 a.m. on February 5, 2021; the case is set for trial on February 23, 2021, at 11:30 a.m. This is a court trial. Estimated time for trial is 5 days. Four Motions to Compel Motion #1. Filed 11/3/20.

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2020

JORGE DELGADO VS SBBC BREWHOUSE LLC

Defendant answered the complaint on April 9, 2020, with a general denial. On September 11, 2020, among other orders, the court ordered defendant to provide further responses to certain requests for production of documents, which sought records pertaining to individual employees of defendant.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

O’BRIEN V. ROTTMAN

On February 3, 2020 attorneys working for State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company filed a general denial of the complaint and asserted affirmative defenses on behalf of the Estate of David Rottman.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 38     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.