Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki

Department 58

Hearing Date: February 7, 2024

Case Name: Bakman v. Nejadpour

Case No.: 23STCV09297

Matter: Motion to Strike

Moving Party: Cross-Defendant Larry Bakman

Responding Party: Cross-Complainant Fari Bari Nejadpour

Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Strike is granted in part and denied in part.

In this unfortunate imposition on the Court’s resources, the Complaint alleges that Defendant Fari Bari Nejadpour (Defendant Nejadpour) “instigated an extremely minor confrontation by cornering, trapping, detaining and threatening” Plaintiff Larry M. Bakman (Plaintiff Bakman) and “forcing a cellular telephone” into Plaintiff’s face and recording Plaintiff's voice without his permission in an attempt to falsely claim that Defendant was a victim in this confrontation. The Complaint alleges claims for (1.) false light, (2.) assault, (3.) false imprisonment, and (4.) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

On June 13, 2023, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Nejadpour filed a Cross-Complaint for (1.) assault, (2.) battery, and (3.) negligence.

On July 12, 2023, Cross-Defendant Bakman moved to strike portions of the Cross-Complaint. Cross-Complainant Nejadpour filed an opposition.

The Motion to Strike is granted in part and denied in part.

Cross-Complainant Nejadpour’s frivolous request for judicial notice of Items Nos. 1-7 is denied.

Legal Standard for Motions to Strike

“The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, 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. (b) Strike out 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.”¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) “Immaterial” or “irrelevant” matters include allegations not essential to the claim, allegations neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or a demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10, subds. (b)(1)-(3).)

Discussion

Cross-Defendant Bakman moves to strike several allegations in the Cross-Complaint. Specifically, Cross-Defendant seeks to strike the following allegations:

1. Page 2, line 13: “... violent spousal abuser...”

2. Page 2, line 16: “Bakman has admitted to making false claims to advantage himself in civil cases.”

3. Page 2, line 17: “Bakman has admitted to threatening criminal charges to obtain an advantage in a civil dispute.”

4. Page 2, line 18: “...frivolous...”

Cross-Defendant Bakman moves to strike these allegations on the grounds that they are irrelevant to the causes of action in this matter.

In opposition, Cross-Complainant Nejadpour argues the allegations are relevant to show the context of the altercation. Nejadpour’s position has not been carefully thought through.

Only the allegation that the ex parte application was “frivolous” (No. 4) is remotely relevant to the underlying altercation (XC ¶ 9.), although Nejadpour’s characterization of the description as “menacing, harassing, and threatening” is risible. (Nejadpour’s request for judicial notice is frivolous; to say so is not harassment.) The remaining allegations (Nos. 1-3) are irrelevant and may be properly stricken.

Conclusion

The motion to strike is granted as to items 1, 2, and 3 (found in Cross-Complaint p. 2, lines 13, 16, and 17). The motion is otherwise denied. Cross-Complainant Nejadpour shall not have leave to amend.