Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

JAYLA TAYLOR, AN INDIVIDUAL;

Plaintiff,

600 TOWER, LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; SB DTLA I LLC., A DELA WARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; SB DTLA 2 LLC., A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; SB DTLA 3 LLC., A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; SB DTLA 4 LLC., A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; GREYSTAR CALIFORNIA INC., AN ENTITY; LEA KIM, AN INDIVIDUAL; BARRY SHY, AN INDIVIDUAL; ERIC SHY, AN INDIVIDUAL; ROMMY SHY, AN INDIVIDUAL; ET AL., AND DOES 1-100, INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

Case No.: 23STCV06541

Hearing Date: 9/25/23

Trial Date: N/A

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:

Plaintiff Jayla Taylor’s Motion to Strike the Answer in its Entirety, or Alternatively, Portions of Answer to Complaint.

Background

Pleadings

Plaintiff Jayla Taylor brings this habitability action against Defendants 600 Tower, LLC, SB DTLA 1 LLC, SB DTLA 2 LLC, SB DTLA 3 LLC, SB DTLA 4, LLC, Greystar California, Inc., Lea Kim, Barry Shy, Eric Shy, Rommy Shy, and Does 1-100 pursuant to a verified March 24, 2023 Complaint alleging claims of (1) Violation of California Civil Code § 1942.4, (2) Tortious Breach of the Warranty of Habitability, (3) Private Nuisance, (4) Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., (5) Negligence, (6) Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment, and (7) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED).

The claims arise from allegations that, among other things, during her tenancy of Unit 417 (Subject Premises) at 600 S. Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90014 (Subject Property)—a unit alleged to fall under the Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO) of the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC)—Plaintiff experienced various substandard conditions, such as inconsistent hot water supply, defective fire alarms, dysfunctional plumbing, leaking pipes and sewage, low water pressure, dysfunctional electrical systems, rodents, missing balcony doorknob, inoperable elevator, inadequate security, and inoperable smoke alarms. Plaintiff further alleges that she reported these conditions to Defendants numerous times, only for Defendants to ignore these complaints or promise to fix the issues but ultimately failing to do so.

Defendants are alleged to have been managers, owners, or agents of the Subject Property, with Defendants acting as one another’s employees, agents, associates, joint venturers, managers, directors, board members, partners, trustees, or beneficiaries of Defendants and/or Defendants’ companies or organizations.

Motion Before the Court

On June 5, 2023, Defendant 600 Tower, LLC (600 Tower) filed and served an unverified Answer to Complaint.

On June 29, 2023, Plaintiff Taylor moved to strike 600 Tower’s unverified Answer for failure to comply with the verification requirement imposed by Code of Civil Procedure section 446, subdivision (a).

On August 10, 2023, Defendant 600 Tower filed a verified Amended Answer to Complaint.

Plaintiff Taylor has not filed a reply or other paper in relation to this motion, which is now before the Court.

Motion to Strike

Legal Standard

The court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion and upon terms it deems proper: (a) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (b) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc. § 436, subds. (a), (b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782 [“Matter in a pleading which is not essential to the claim is surplusage; probative facts are surplusage and may be stricken out or disregarded”].)

For the purposes of a motion to strike pursuant to Sections 435 to 437 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the term “pleading” generally means a demurrer, answer, complaint, or cross-complaint, (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (a)), and an immaterial allegation or irrelevant matter in a pleading entails (1) an allegation that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense, (2) an allegation that is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense, or (3) a demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint or cross-complaint (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10, subds. (b)(1)-(3), (c)).

Order Striking Answer: MOOT.

Plaintiff’s motion seeks to strike the now-superseded June 5, 2023 Answer to Complaint by Defendant 600 Tower on the ground that Code of Civil Procedure section 446, subdivision (a), requires that an answer to a verified complaint also be verified, which the June 5, 2023 Answer is not. (Mot., pp. 3-5.)

While the Court recognizes the merit of this position, Defendant 600 Tower has since filed an Amended Answer that is verified. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 446, subd. (a) [“When the complaint is verified, the answer shall be verified”]; 8/10/23 Amended Answer, Verification [Amended Answer verified by 600 Tower’s General Manager].)

Plaintiff’s motion is therefore MOOT because the pleading against which it is directed has been superseded.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Jayla Taylor’s Motion to Strike the Answer in its Entirety, or Alternatively, Portions of Answer to Complaint is MOOT.