Judge Audra Mori, Case 21STCV25564 2023-03-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV25564, Date: 2023-03-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV25564 Hearing Date: March 10, 2023 Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

DANIEL ROMERO GARCIA,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

CHRISTOPHER BLAKNEY, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

CASE NO: 21STCV25564

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

March 10, 2023

1. Background

Plaintiff Daniel Romero Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Christopher Blakney (“Defendant”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. The complaint alleges a single cause of action for negligence against Defendant.

At this time, Defendant moves to strike a portion of Plaintiff’s Statement of Damages that states that Plaintiff is seeking punitive damages in the amount of $250,000 against Defendant. Defendant argues that the facts pled in the complaint are insufficient to support the request for punitive damages in the Statement of Damages. The motion is unopposed.

2. Motion to Strike

California law authorizes a party’s motion to strike matter from an opposing party’s pleading if it is irrelevant, false, or improper. (CCP §§ 435; 436(a).) For purposes of a motion to strike, “the term ‘pleading’ means a demurrer, answer, complaint, or cross-complaint.” (CCP §§ 435(a)(2).) Motions may also target pleadings or parts of pleadings which are not filed or drawn in conformity with applicable laws, rules or orders. (CCP § 436(b).) A motion to strike is used to address defects that appear on the face of a pleading or from judicially noticed matter but that are not grounds for a demurrer. (Pierson v Sharp Memorial Hospital (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 340, 342; see also City & County of San Francisco v Strahlendorf (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1911, 1913 (motion may not be based on a party's declaration or factual representations made by counsel in the motion papers).) In particular, a motion to strike can be used to attack the entire pleading or any part thereof – in other words, a motion may target single words or phrases, unlike demurrers. (Warren v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 24, 40.) The Code of Civil Procedure also authorizes the Court to act on its own initiative to strike matters, empowering the Court to enter orders striking matter “at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper.” (CCP § 436.)

Here, the complaint does not contain any language requesting or praying for punitive damages against Defendant. Defendant is seeking to strike language from Plaintiff’s Statement of Damages, which was not attached to or part of Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff has not filed a copy of the Statement with the Court. Defendant cites to Evidence Code §§ 451, 452, and 453 in requesting that the Court take judicial notice of the Statement of Damages. (Mot. at p. 1:27-28 n 1.) However, Plaintiff does not cite under which subdivision within any of these provisions it is proper to take judicial notice of the Statement of Damages.[1] Nonetheless, even if the Court took judicial notice of the Statement, Defendant fails to cite any authority holding the Court is authorized to strike a portion of a Statement of Damages. Although Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s Statement of Damages effectively constitutes a pleading,[2] the term “pleading” in the context of a motion to strike is specifically defined and “means a demurrer, answer, complaint, or cross-complaint.” (CCP § 435(a)(2).) Further, Defendant does not explain the utility of striking language in the Statement of Damages, as Plaintiff does not request punitive damages in the Complaint. If Plaintiff seeks punitive damages, it should file a motion for leave to amend the Complaint, and Defendant may oppose such a motion.

Therefore, because Defendant fails to provide any authority for striking language from a Statement of Damages, Defendant’s motion to strike is denied.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.
Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.
If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.

Dated this 10^th day of March 2023

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] The Statement of Damages is not a law, rule or decision; it is not universally known; it is not a court record, as it was never filed; and it is not an official act.

[2] The case cited by Defendant for this proposition, Plotista v. Superior Court (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 755, 759, does not hold or address whether a Statement of Damages can be the subject of a motion to strike; rather, the court analyzed how a Statement of Damages must be served before a default judgment may be entered based upon the Statement.