Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 22STCV38230, Date: 2023-12-12 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F51, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2251.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 22STCV38230    Hearing Date: December 12, 2023    Dept: F51

MOTION TO STRIKE

Motion to Strike filed: 11/15/23

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Southern California Nevada Conference of the United Church of Christ (“Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant The Congregational Church of Chatsworth (“Defendant/Cross-Complainant”)

RELIEF REQUESTED: Motion to Strike Cross-Complaint.

TENTATIVE RULING: The Motion to Strike is denied.  

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE: Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s request for judicial notice is granted.

ANALYSIS

Legal Standard 

The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a).) The court may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Id. at subd. (b).) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437.)

The Motion is Untimely

As stated in the Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s Opposition, “[T]his motion is months untimely, was waived as of August 29, 2023, and this Court is not required to even consider it.” (Opp. 1:25-26.)  The Court agrees.  A motion to strike must be filed “within the time allowed to respond to a pleading.” (CCP § 435(b)(1).)  Clearly, the Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s “Notice of Filing” does not satisfy the requirements of California Rules of Court Rule 3.1322(a) regarding a notice of motion.  The Court, although not proud of it, acknowledges our backlog and delay in motion dates.  However, this in no way impedes the proper and timely filing of properly noticed motions. 

For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s Opposition and Reply, the Motion is denied. 

CONCLUSION

The Motion to Strike is denied.

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is required.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument will be permitted unless a “party notifies all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  “The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no notice of intent to appear is received.”  

Notice may be given either by email at CHAdeptF51@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 407-2233.

CMC is continued to 02/27/2024.