What is a General Denial?

Useful Rulings on General Denial

Recent Rulings on General Denial

GRANT VS DANG

Dang's answer in this case is a general denial. As far as the Court is aware, Ms. Dang has not sought to amend her answer to admit liability for the collision and has not presented any other document (such as a response to a request for admission or a written stipulation) admitting liability in a legally binding manner. Unless and until Ms. Dang admits liability in a legally binding manner, the requested discovery is also relevant on the issue of Ms. Dang's liability for the collision.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

WELLS FARGO VS. TAIWAN WALKER

On March 12, 2020 the defendant failed to appear for a scheduled CMC and his answer (a General Denial that contained no factual allegations or asserted defenses) was ordered stricken. On June 17, 2020 the Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. No opposition has been filed. The court has reviewed the motion and the complaint and now grants the Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff is directed to prepare and submit a final judgment on or before Friday, November 13, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

CAPITAL ONE BANK USA N A VS JACOB

The answer is just a general denial; no affirmative defenses are raised. Discovery thereafter commenced. Plaintiff served a set of requests for admission, to which defendant did not respond at all. Accordingly, plaintiff moves the court to order said requests for admission are deemed admitted [CCP §2033.280(b)]. ROA 19. This is a familiar pattern in cases of this type. See, e.g., Capital One v. Corrales, Case No. 2018-65219, minutes for Nov. 22, 2019; Capital One v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

CAPITAL ONE BANK USA N A VS JACOB

The answer is just a general denial; no affirmative defenses are raised. Discovery thereafter commenced. Plaintiff served a set of requests for admission, to which defendant did not respond at all. Accordingly, plaintiff moves the court to order said requests for admission are deemed admitted [CCP §2033.280(b)]. ROA 19. This is a familiar pattern in cases of this type. See, e.g., Capital One v. Corrales, Case No. 2018-65219, minutes for Nov. 22, 2019; Capital One v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

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 16. This is a familiar pattern in cases of this type. See, e.g., Midland Funding v. Moreno, Case No. 2013-79780, minutes for 1/23/15; FIA Card Services v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

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 16. This is a familiar pattern in cases of this type. See, e.g., Midland Funding v. Moreno, Case No. 2013-79780, minutes for 1/23/15; FIA Card Services v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

JORGE DELGADO VS SBBC BREWHOUSE LLC

Defendant answered the complaint on April 9, 2020, with a general denial. On February 26, 2020, plaintiff served (1) Special Interrogatories, Set One, (2) Form Interrogatories, Set One, and (3) Request for Production of Documents, Set One, on defendant. After being granted an extension of time to respond, defendant served its responses on April 24, 2020. The responses were unverified and contained little substantive information, mostly objections.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

AMAG INC, VS MARC ANTHONY CUBAS, ET AL.

Ph answered the complaint with a general denial. On the day before trial, Ph notified NEC that it would not appear. The trial took place without Ph’s attendance, and judgment was entered against Ph. Ph did not appeal. Instead, Ph filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. (NEC, supra, 208 Cal.App.3d at 775-76.) Six months later, NEC filed a motion to amend the judgment against Ph to name Hurt as an alter ego judgment debtor. The trial court granted the motion.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PERLA GLOBAL CAPITAL ADVISORS LLC VS KASSIE SMITH LIFESTYLE

Relying on Motores, the appellate court in NEC Electronics Inc. reversed the trial court’s decision because the chief executive officer neither shared the corporation’s interests nor controlled its defense when no further proceedings were conducted after the corporation filed its general denial. Thus, there was no defense for the chief executive officer to control. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

JOSEPH GRESSIS VS CORPORATE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

Ph answered the complaint with a general denial. On the day before trial, Ph notified NEC that it would not appear. The trial took place without Ph’s attendance, and judgment was entered against Ph. Ph did not appeal. Instead, Ph filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. (NEC, supra, 208 Cal.App.3d at 775-76.) Six months later, NEC filed a motion to amend the judgment against Ph to name Hurt as an alter ego judgment debtor. The trial court granted the motion.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MICHAEL VIRAMONTES, ET AL. VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.

In fact, as noted in Defendant’s answer, Defendant included a general denial as to each and every allegation. (Answer filed 3/2/20.) Simply stated, “Civil Code section 3287, subdivision (a) does not permit an award of prejudgment interest where the amount of damage, as opposed to the determination of liability, depends on a judicial determination based on conflicting evidence.” (Airs Aromatics, LLC v. CBL Data Recovery Technologies Inc. (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 1009.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

TD AUTO FINANCE LLC VS RESENDIZ

However, the deemed admissions do not address all of Defendant Resendiz's 20 affirmative defenses asserted in her General Denial.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

TD AUTO FINANCE LLC VS RESENDIZ

However, the deemed admissions do not address all of Defendant Resendiz's 20 affirmative defenses asserted in her General Denial.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

TD AUTO FINANCE LLC VS RESENDIZ

However, the deemed admissions do not address all of Defendant Resendiz's 20 affirmative defenses asserted in her General Denial.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

MICHAEL FERRARA, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS 1088 ALAMITOS AVE LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

The answer in this case pleads a general denial of each and every allegation and claim for damages stated in the complaint and asserts 31 affirmative defenses. A general denial is effective to controvert all material allegations of an unverified complaint. CCP § 431.30(d). Plaintiff seeks judgment based on affirmative defenses 1-11 and 13-31. The answer must aver facts “as carefully and with as much detail as the facts which constitute the cause of action and which are alleged in the complaint.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

KHOSRO REGHABI, ET AL. VS ARIAN EGHBALI, 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

    Sep 09, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SUPERIOR COURT VS. SEELE

On 26 June 2018, defendant Jefferis filed a general denial to plaintiff Englehart’s complaint. On 20 January 2020, defendant Seele filed the motion now before the court, a motion for summary judgment/ adjudication of plaintiff Englehart’s complaint. II. Analysis. A. Sexual Harassment.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

XERA HEALTH LLC VS SCHEELE

Scheele and Nova-Life filed a general denial as well as a cross-complaint in intervention against CSVBA and George McGregor. ROA 198, 199. This cross-complaint in intervention was later amended (ROA 223). Xera Health filed an answer as well as a cross-complaint in intervention against Scheele and Nova-Life. ROA 205, 206. The court was required to vacate the trial date due to the parties' inability to prepare for trial. ROA 187.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

XERA HEALTH LLC VS SCHEELE

Scheele and Nova-Life filed a general denial as well as a cross-complaint in intervention against CSVBA and George McGregor. ROA 198, 199. This cross-complaint in intervention was later amended (ROA 223). Xera Health filed an answer as well as a cross-complaint in intervention against Scheele and Nova-Life. ROA 205, 206. The court was required to vacate the trial date due to the parties' inability to prepare for trial. ROA 187.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. VS. MURDAH

Defendant’s failure to appear may result in an order striking the Defendant’s Answer to or General Denial of the complaint.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

SYNCHRONY BANK VS. KERIAN

Defendant’s failure to appear may result in an order striking the Defendant’s Answer to or General Denial of the complaint.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

BANK OF AMERICA N.A. VS. MAYS

Defendant’s failure to appear may result in an order striking the Defendant’s Answer to or General Denial of the complaint.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

VELOCITY INVESTMENTS VS. MORIKAWA

Defendant’s failure to appear may result in an order striking the Defendant’s Answer to or General Denial of the complaint.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

CAVALRY SPV I VS. COOPER

Defendant’s failure to appear may result in an order striking the Defendant’s Answer to or General Denial of the complaint.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

CAVALRY SPV I VS. NAVARRO

Defendant’s failure to appear may result in an order striking the Defendant’s Answer to or General Denial of the complaint.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 35     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.