Preview
Case Number: 18-CIV-01901
SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY
400 County Center 1050 Mission Road
Redwood City, CA 94063 South San Francisco, CA 94080
www.sanmateocourt.org
Minute Order
BRYAN TRUJILLO, et al vs. STEPHEN MAGEE, et al 18-CIV-01901
04/12/2022 2:00 PM
Hearing on Demurrer
Hearing Result: Held
Judicial Officer: Fineman, Nancy L. Location: Courtroom G
Courtroom Clerk: Antonio Geronimo Courtroom Reporter: Chris Perez
Parties Present
MONTANARI, GARRY L Attorney
Exhibits
Minutes
Journals
- At 2:04 p.m. -Matter is called.
- Attorney GARRY MONTANARI appears via zoom for Defendant.
- No appearance by Plaintiff or their counsel.
- Attorney GARRY MONTANARI to prepare order.
Case Events
- Tentative ruling adopted and becomes order:
Plaintiffs’ demurrer to Defendants’ Second Amended Answer (“SAA”) is OVERRULED for the reasons set
forth below. Plaintiffs demur to the SAA on the grounds that Defendants have pled no facts supporting
the fourteenth affirmative defense of estoppel. Defendants’ fourteenth affirmative defense provides:
“As a separate and affirmative defense, defendants contend that plaintiffs’ complaint, each cause of
action thereof and/or remedies sought are barred by the doctrine of estoppel.” SAA, ¶ 14. As noted by
Plaintiffs, 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.” Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro.
Before Trial Ch. 6-C, § 6:459 (quoting FPI Develop., Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 384).
Defendants, citing Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 6-C, § 6:472 and Harris v. City
of Santa Monica (2013) 56 C4th 203, 240, respond that the demurrer should be overruled because the
SAA, as well as the pre-trial proceedings relating to the parties’ motions in limine, have provided
sufficient notice to enable Plaintiffs to prepare to meet the estoppel defense. The Court agrees with
Defendants. In Harris, the court noted the general rule that an answer must contain a statement of any
matter constituting a defense. The court further noted, however, that the purpose of the pleading
requirements is to provide notice to the other party so that it may prepare a defense, and that a
pleading defect may be disregarded if it does not prejudice the opposing party. Id. In the present case,
Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate they do not have sufficient notice of Defendants’ estoppel defense,
or that they have been prejudiced by any defect in Defendants’ SAA. The nature of Defendants’ estoppel
defense was identified in Defendants’ Supplemental Brief, filed April 5, 2021, in Support of Defendants’
Motion in Limine No. 4. Defendants addressed the estoppel claim again in their September 24, 2021
1
Case Number: 18-CIV-01901
Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Answer and noted the grounds for the defense had been
raised in its April 5 Supplemental Brief in support of Motion in Limine No.4, where they contended “that
by seeking abatement of the spilled fuel, plaintiffs were estopped from claiming a permanent nuisance
and were seeking double recovery.” Motion at., p.7. Defendants subsequently raised the estoppel claim
in their Second Supplemental Brief relating to the parties’ motions in limine, filed January 7, 2022. The
estoppel claim was addressed by the parties at the pretrial conference held on January 31. 1/31/22
Minute Order. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff had adequate notice of the facts
supporting the estoppel defense, notwithstanding the absence of such factual support in Defendants’
SAA. Additionally, there is no evidence of prejudice to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice is
GRANTED pursuant to Evid. Code § 452(d). The Court takes notice of the fact that the documents were
filed or recorded, as well as their legal effect, but not as to the truth of any matters asserted therein.
Defendants’ request for judicial notice is GRANTED pursuant to Evid. Code § 452(d) with respect to
requests Nos. 2, 3, and 4. The Court takes notice of the fact that the documents were filed or recorded,
but not as to the truth of any matters asserted therein. Defendants’ request for judicial notice is DENIED
with respect to request No.1. Defendants have not identified any basis for taking notice of “Plaintiff
Cindy Trujillo’s email published on the GeoTracker website.” Counsel for Defendants shall prepare a
written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of
Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the
action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.
Others
Comments:
Future Hearings and Vacated Hearings
Rescheduled: April 12, 2022 2:00 PM Hearing on Demurrer
Reason: Calendar Redistribution
Courtroom N
Segran-Teo, Ashmika
Fineman, Nancy L.
April 19, 2022 9:30 AM Case Management and Trial Setting Conference
Segran-Teo, Ashmika
Fineman, Nancy L.
Courtroom G
2
Preview
Case Number: 18-CIV-01901 SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY 400 County Center 1050 Mission Road Redwood City, CA 94063 South San Francisco, CA 94080 www.sanmateocourt.org Minute Order BRYAN TRUJILLO, et al vs. STEPHEN MAGEE, et al 18-CIV-01901 04/12/2022 2:00 PM Hearing on Demurrer Hearing Result: Held Judicial Officer: Fineman, Nancy L. Location: Courtroom G Courtroom Clerk: Antonio Geronimo Courtroom Reporter: Chris Perez Parties Present MONTANARI, GARRY L Attorney Exhibits Minutes Journals - At 2:04 p.m. -Matter is called. - Attorney GARRY MONTANARI appears via zoom for Defendant. - No appearance by Plaintiff or their counsel. - Attorney GARRY MONTANARI to prepare order. Case Events - Tentative ruling adopted and becomes order: Plaintiffs’ demurrer to Defendants’ Second Amended Answer (“SAA”) is OVERRULED for the reasons set forth below. Plaintiffs demur to the SAA on the grounds that Defendants have pled no facts supporting the fourteenth affirmative defense of estoppel. Defendants’ fourteenth affirmative defense provides: “As a separate and affirmative defense, defendants contend that plaintiffs’ complaint, each cause of action thereof and/or remedies sought are barred by the doctrine of estoppel.” SAA, ¶ 14. As noted by Plaintiffs, 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.” Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 6-C, § 6:459 (quoting FPI Develop., Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 384). Defendants, citing Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 6-C, § 6:472 and Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 C4th 203, 240, respond that the demurrer should be overruled because the SAA, as well as the pre-trial proceedings relating to the parties’ motions in limine, have provided sufficient notice to enable Plaintiffs to prepare to meet the estoppel defense. The Court agrees with Defendants. In Harris, the court noted the general rule that an answer must contain a statement of any matter constituting a defense. The court further noted, however, that the purpose of the pleading requirements is to provide notice to the other party so that it may prepare a defense, and that a pleading defect may be disregarded if it does not prejudice the opposing party. Id. In the present case, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate they do not have sufficient notice of Defendants’ estoppel defense, or that they have been prejudiced by any defect in Defendants’ SAA. The nature of Defendants’ estoppel defense was identified in Defendants’ Supplemental Brief, filed April 5, 2021, in Support of Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 4. Defendants addressed the estoppel claim again in their September 24, 2021 1 Case Number: 18-CIV-01901 Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Answer and noted the grounds for the defense had been raised in its April 5 Supplemental Brief in support of Motion in Limine No.4, where they contended “that by seeking abatement of the spilled fuel, plaintiffs were estopped from claiming a permanent nuisance and were seeking double recovery.” Motion at., p.7. Defendants subsequently raised the estoppel claim in their Second Supplemental Brief relating to the parties’ motions in limine, filed January 7, 2022. The estoppel claim was addressed by the parties at the pretrial conference held on January 31. 1/31/22 Minute Order. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff had adequate notice of the facts supporting the estoppel defense, notwithstanding the absence of such factual support in Defendants’ SAA. Additionally, there is no evidence of prejudice to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice is GRANTED pursuant to Evid. Code § 452(d). The Court takes notice of the fact that the documents were filed or recorded, as well as their legal effect, but not as to the truth of any matters asserted therein. Defendants’ request for judicial notice is GRANTED pursuant to Evid. Code § 452(d) with respect to requests Nos. 2, 3, and 4. The Court takes notice of the fact that the documents were filed or recorded, but not as to the truth of any matters asserted therein. Defendants’ request for judicial notice is DENIED with respect to request No.1. Defendants have not identified any basis for taking notice of “Plaintiff Cindy Trujillo’s email published on the GeoTracker website.” Counsel for Defendants shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court. Others Comments: Future Hearings and Vacated Hearings Rescheduled: April 12, 2022 2:00 PM Hearing on Demurrer Reason: Calendar Redistribution Courtroom N Segran-Teo, Ashmika Fineman, Nancy L. April 19, 2022 9:30 AM Case Management and Trial Setting Conference Segran-Teo, Ashmika Fineman, Nancy L. Courtroom G 2