charging D $$ for P’s benefit (better to let P’s uncertain complaint stand as is) Motion to strike… If something irrelevant/improper in (i.e. $$ amount of complaint punitive then strike portion of damages), complaint… OR, if P has failed to comply w/ statutory requirement (i.e. verification … required by statute), then MAY strike entire complaint P will likely be able to amend after complaint demurrer… BUT, NOT necessarily after motion to strike … Answer If P AND, in CA, attorneys generally do NOT unverified complaint – verify, unless required then D MAY file typed out form w/ general denial – denial language AND room for affirmative defenses MAY appear stupid/lazy if listing all AND, costing affirmative defenses… client $$ by expanding scope of dispute… BUT, if is NOT included, then waived risk of being affirmative defense … too selective In D (contractor) Advantec Group, Inc. v. Edwin’s Plumbing Co., files against P, P files cross-complaint general denial general denial sufficient to controvert (cross-)complaint… thus, NOT necessary for P to in affirmative defense general … re: D NOT being licensed contractor D being licensed was denial alleged in cross-complaint… thus, b/c D unable to prove licensure, D loses on cross-complaint … If P files then NO allowed must verified complaint, general denial answer respond to paragraph-by-paragraph complaint MAY force settlement w/ (D’s requires more verified complaint answer info/time/$$)… BUT, MAY also anger D’s counsel w/ such aggressiveness… AND, … MAY be impeached if untruthful (can’t amend) verified complaint In federal does NOT require verified complaint answer… BUT, in federal court, there is NO available general denial … is always paragraph-by-paragraph answer
charging D $$ for P’s benefit (better to let P’s uncertain complaint stand as is) Motion to strike… If something irrelevant/improper in complaint (i.e. $$ amount of punitive damages), then strike portion of complaint… … OR, if P has failed to comply w/ statutory requirement (i.e. verification required by statute), then MAY strike entire complaint P will likely be able to amend complaint after demurrer… … BUT, NOT necessarily after motion to strike Answer If P unverified complaint – AND, in CA, attorneys generally do NOT verify, unless required – then D MAY file general denial typed out form w/ denial language AND room for affirmative defenses MAY appear stupid/lazy if listing all affirmative defenses… AND, costing client $$ by expanding scope of dispute… … BUT, if affirmative defense is NOT included, then waived risk of being too selective In Advantec Group, Inc. v. Edwin’s Plumbing Co., D (contractor) files cross-complaint against P, P files general denial general denial sufficient to controvert (cross-)complaint… … thus, NOT necessary for P to affirmative defense in general denial re: D NOT being licensed contractor D being licensed was alleged in cross-complaint… … thus, b/c D unable to prove licensure, D loses on cross-complaint If P files verified complaint, then NO general denial allowed answer must respond to complaint paragraph-by-paragraph MAY force settlement w/ verified complaint (D’s answer requires more info/time/$$)… … BUT, MAY also anger D’s counsel w/ such aggressiveness… AND, MAY be impeached if verified complaint untruthful (can’t amend) In federal verified complaint does NOT require answer… … BUT, in federal court, there is NO general denial available answer is always paragraph-by-paragraph