Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22AHCV00149, Date: 2022-09-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22AHCV00149 Hearing Date: September 27, 2022 Dept: 3
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles – NORTHEAST District
Department
3
|
vs. |
Case
No.: |
22AHCV00149 |
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing
Date: |
September
27, 2022 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Tentative]
Order RE: city of san marino’s motion to strike
plaintiff’s first amended complaint |
||
MOVING PARTY: Defendant City of San Marino
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Sam Benites and Nick Maza
City of San Marino’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
The court
considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply filed in connection with this
motion.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Nick Maza and Sam Benites
filed this employment action on March 21, 2022 against Defendant City of San
Marino (the “City”). The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on
July 21, 2022.
Plaintiffs allege that they were employed by the City as firefighters
(paramedic and captain) and applied for exemptions from the City’s COVID-19
vaccination policy. The City denied their requests. As a result, one plaintiff
obtained the vaccination and alleges that he was improperly coerced to waive
and give up his rights. The other plaintiff, who chose not to get vaccinated,
was terminated from his employment. Plaintiffs assert causes of action for (1)
discrimination in violation of FEHA (based on religion) and (2) failure to
accommodate in violation of FEHA.
The City now moves to strike portions of the FAC (specific paragraph,
page, and line numbers are identified in the City’s notice of motion).
LEGAL STANDARD
A court may strike any “
The City moves to strike the
portions of the FAC where Plaintiffs allege that they were both terminated
from employment. There appears to be no dispute that any allegation that both
plaintiffs were terminated from employment is false. Therefore, the court
grants the motion to strike as to the identified portions of paragraphs 1, 12,
13, 21, and 29 and paragraphs 1 and 2 of the prayer for relief.
The City also moves to strike
the portions of the FAC where Plaintiffs allege facts relating to the
now-dismissed cause of action for failure to engage in the interactive process.
Plaintiffs counter that these allegations remain pertinent with respect to the
remaining causes of action, but Plaintiffs do not explain how they are
pertinent. The court therefore finds that these allegations are improper
matter, and the motion to strike is granted as to the identified portions of
paragraphs 1, 10, 11, and 12.
Finally, the City moves to
strike the portions of the FAC where Plaintiffs cite laws and regulations
relating to disabled persons. Because Plaintiffs do not allege that they are
disabled, and because Plaintiffs do not offer any other reason for citing laws
and regulations relating to disabilities, the court finds that these
allegations are irrelevant, and the motion to strike is granted as to the
identified portions of paragraphs 24, 25, and 28.
Plaintiffs
argue that the City has identified portions of the FAC that, if stricken in
their entirety, will affect the substance of their claims. For example, the
allegation that “these Plaintiffs are the only Fire Fighters to be terminated
for failing to be vaccinated as of today’s date.” (FAC, ¶ 13, p. 3:16-17.) Nevertheless,
Plaintiffs’ remedy is to amend their complaint to clarify that only one plaintiff
was terminated from employment, and the court will grant Plaintiffs leave to
amend in order to do so.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the court grants the City’s motion to strike
in its entirety, with leave to amend.
The court orders Plaintiffs to file and serve an amended complaint, if
any, within 20 days of the date of this order. If no amended complaint is filed
within 20 days, the court orders the City to file and serve an answer within 30
days of the date of this order.
The City is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
_____________________________
Colin
Leis
Judge
of the Superior Court