Questions on JDB's affirmative defenses in answer to crosscomplaint

[Learnin]

I cross complained vs. JDB.  They answered.  I'm going to demur their answer.

 

 

There are only three grounds for a demurrer to an answer under California Code of Civil Procedure § 430.20:

- Failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense;

- Uncertainty;

- Failure to state whether contract alleged in the answer is written or oral.

 

As far as I can tell, there are NO facts in any of the 17 boilerplate affirmative defenses.

 

Many of them I'm uncertain about, but I'm guessing that doesn't make the defense itself 'uncertain', which means vague or unintelligable.

 

I have some questions.

 

 

1.  In the demurrer, I believe I have to comment on each of the 17 affirmative defenses such that a judge can pass/fail each and every of them.  True/false?

 

 

2.  X Affirmative Defense:  The Cross-Defendant (CD) alleges herein that each and every purported cause of action contained therein is barred by reason of the fact the Cross Complainant (CC) has engaged in acts and courses of conduct, which render it in pari delicto.

 

No facts.  Uncertain as to what these acts and courses of conduct are.   Also, isn't this affirmative defense admitting that they are at fault/guilty?

 

in pari delicto

adv. (in pah-ree dee-lick-toe) Latin for "in equal fault," which means that two (or more) people are all at fault or are all guilty 

 

 

3.  X Affirmative Defense: The Cross-Complaint herein and each and every cause of action therein is barred by reason of acts, omissions, representations and courses of conduct by the CC which CD were led to rely on to it's detriment, thereby barring under the doctrine of equitable estopppel any causes of action asserted by CC.

 

No facts, and uncertain?  Or does 'no facts' cover the uncertainty?

 

They brought the complaint, the resulting cross-complaint is based on their actions bringing the complaint, what is their strategy in blaming me in this fashion as an aff. defense?

 

 

4.  X Affirmative Defense:  This CD alleges that CC's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the Statute of Fraud.  (and another barred for Unclean Hands, and another barred because CC has not received consideration from CD)

 

I believe this has no facts.  Also uncertain?

 

 

5.  X Affirmative Defense:  (paraphrased) All injuries and loss were caused by  the carelessness and negligence of CC.  (And a similar blaming 3rd parties so not CD's fault)

 

No facts.

 

 

5. X Affirmative Defense:  CD is informed and believes and based upon such information and belief, allege that CC has failed to mitigate its alleged damages, if any.

 

Not sure what to think about this one.  Help.

 

 

6.  X Affirmative Defense:  CD herein reserves all rights to modify, amend, supplement or delete this pleading in any way to remove or assert any affirmative defenses whose applicability, or lack thereof, may become apparent upon further investigation and discovery.

 

Is this even an affirmative defense?  Doesn't seem like it.  How would one respond to that?

 

 

7. X Affirmative Defense:  CC has waived any and all claims it may have had against the CD.

 

What?   I filed a cross complaint, how are they thinking I waived anything?

 

No facts, possibly uncertain (I'm certainly uncertain about it.)

 

 

 

 

 

[BV80]

@Learnin

 

What was your cause(s) of action and allegations?

[Learnin]

Fraud and FDCPA's.

[nascar]

What a load of crap.

[Anon Amos]

I think I would just accept their answer, let them try to prove the defenses.