Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 24CHCV00877, Date: 2024-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV00877    Hearing Date: November 7, 2024    Dept: F51

MOTION TO STRIKE

Motion Filed: 6/27/24

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Lilia Garcia-Brower, California State Labor Commissioner, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, Department of Industrial Relations, State of California, on behalf of the People of the State of California (“Plaintiff”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Hugo Hernandez (“Defendant”)

NOTICE: NOT OK (misstates that motion is to strike D’s amended answer)

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order striking Defendant’s answer to Plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety, with leave to amend.

TENTATIVE RULING: The unopposed motion is granted. The Court strikes Defendant’s answer with 30 days leave to amend.

BACKGROUND 

This is a wrongful termination action brought by Plaintiff, the California State Labor Commissioner, on behalf of the People of the State of California, for civil penalties, injunctive relief, and costs of suit as damages arising from defendants Hugo Hernandez and E & J Construction Landscape Inc., a/k/a E & J Construction Landscape Inc.’s unlawful retaliation, under Labor Code sections 244 and 1019, against Mr. Epifanio Huerta (“Complainant”) for engaging in activity protected under Labor Code sections 98.6 and 1102.5. (Compl. 1:26–2:3.)

On 3/14/24, Plaintiff filed her complaint, alleging against both defendants the following causes of action: (1) Violation of Labor Code § 98.6; (2) Violation of Labor Code § 244; (3) Violation of Labor Code § 1019(a); and (4) Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5. On 6/24/24, Defendant filed his answer.

On 6/27/24, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to strike Defendant’s answer. On 10/29/24, Defendant filed his notice of non-opposition.[1]

ANALYSIS

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 436, 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., § 436, subd. (b).) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Id., § 437.)

Here, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s answer must be stricken because it is unverified and fails to contain specific denials, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure sections 446, subdivision (a), and 431.30, subdivision (d). (Pl.’s Mot. 4:12–22.) Defendant concedes that “Plaintiff’s motion to strike is unopposed and Defendant requests leave to file an amended Answer on or before December 6, 2024.” (Def.’s Not. of Non-Opp. 2:19–20.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants the unopposed motion to strike Defendant’s answer, with 30 days leave to amend.

CONCLUSION 

The unopposed motion is granted. The Court strikes Defendant’s answer with 30 days leave to amend.