Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 23CHCV02040, Date: 2025-05-08 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: 23CHCV02040    Hearing Date: May 8, 2025    Dept: F51

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F-51

MOTION TO STRIKE

Motion Filed: 1/27/25

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Alicia Johnson (“Plaintiff”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Prince Hospitality, LLC, dba Homewood Suites Santa Clarita; and Defendant Lawrence Barr (collectively, “Defendants”)

NOTICE: OK 

RELIEF REQUESTED: Plaintiff moves to strike Defendants’ answer and cross-complaint.

¿ 

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is denied. Plaintiff to file her response to Defendant Prince Hospitality, LLC’s cross-complaint within 30 days.

BACKGROUND 

This is wrongful eviction action in which Plaintiff alleges that she, “rented a unit at the property located at 28700 Newhall Ranch Rd., Santa Clarita, CA 91355 on or about October 31, 2021.” (FAC ¶ 8.) Defendant Prince Hospitality LLC owns and operates the subject property, and defendant Lawrence Barr is employed by Prince Hospitality. (Id. at ¶¶ 3–4, 6.) Plaintiff alleges that on 6/16/23 and 6/22/23, she was unlawfully locked out of her unit, with her personal property removed therefrom. (Id. at ¶¶ 12–20.)

On 7/13/23, Plaintiff filed her complaint against Defendants, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Landlord Self Help; (2) Breach of Implied Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; (3) Wrongful/Constructive Eviction; (4) Conversion; (5) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. On 6/24/24, Plaintiff filed her first amended complaint (“FAC”), alleging the same causes of action.

On 12/26/24, Defendants filed their answer to Plaintiff’s FAC. On 12/26/24, defendant Prince Hospitality LLC filed a cross-complaint, alleging against Plaintiff the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Written Contract; (2) Unjust Enrichment; (3) Goods and Services Rendered; (4) Open Book Account; (5) Account Stated; and (6) Violation of Penal Code 537(a).

On 1/27/25, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to strike. On 4/25/25, Defendants filed their opposition. No reply has been filed to date.

ANALYSIS

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.)¿

Here, Plaintiff moves to Defendants’ answer and cross-complaint as untimely filed.

A.    Meet and Confer

“Before filing a motion to strike pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the objections to be raised in the motion to strike.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 435.5, subd. (a).) The parties are required to meet and confer at least five days before the date a motion to strike must be filed, otherwise the moving party is granted a 30-day extension to file the motion. (Ibid.)¿ 

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel declares that on 1/24/25, he met and conferred with Defendants’ counsel to discuss the issues raised in the instant motion to strike, but the parties were unable to come to a resolution. (Decl. of Daniel Choi ¶¶ 17–18.) Therefore, the Court finds that counsel has satisfied the preliminary meet-and-confer requirements under Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5, subdivision (a).)

¿¿ 

B.     Defendants’ Answer and Cross-Complaint

Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ answer and cross-complaint must be stricken because “the flagrantly delinquent filing of the Answer without obtaining leave of Court or an extension from Plaintiff renders the Answer nonconforming with California Rules of Court section 3.1320. Furthermore, the delinquent filing severely hinders Plaintiff’[s] ability to conduct meaningful discovery on the issues raised by Defendants’ Answer.” (Pl.’s Mot. 8:23–27.)

In opposition, Defendants argue that “Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants’ filings have somehow hindered her ability to conduct discovery is entirely unfounded and unsupported by the procedural history of this case. Despite her attempts to assert prejudice, the record demonstrates that Plaintiff herself agreed to a stipulation on March 10, 2025, to extend both the trial date and discovery deadlines.” (Defs.’ Opp. 4:22–24.) “This extended timeline provides ample and reasonable time for both parties to prepare adequately for trial and to conduct all necessary discovery.” (Id. at 4:27–28.) “The court’s order continuing discovery and trial timelines ensures ample opportunity for Plaintiff to address the issues raised in Defendants’ Answer and Cross-Complaint. As such, Plaintiff has suffered no substantive harm or prejudice, and her Motion to Strike should be denied in its entirety.” (Id. at 6:17–20.)

The Court notes that Plaintiff has not filed a reply to Defendants’ opposition. While the Court notes Defendants’ unexplained delay in filing their answer and cross-complaint beyond the 30-day deadline to do so, it agrees with Defendants that granting the instant motion to strike “would undermine the principles of equity, delay progress, and prevent the Court from addressing the full scope of this dispute.” (Id. at 7:22–23; Code Civ. Proc. § 412.20, subd. (a)(3).) The Court notes that the law strongly favors trial and disposition on the merits, and that non-jury trial of the action is currently set for 3/16/26. Accordingly, the motion is denied.

CONCLUSION 

The motion is denied. Plaintiff to file her response to Defendant Prince Hospitality, LLC’s cross-complaint within 30 days.