Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 24STCV31291, Date: 2025-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV31291    Hearing Date: April 11, 2025    Dept: 74

:Taquan-Rahshe :Gullett-El v. Yang et al.

Plaintiff :Taquan-Rahshe :Gullett-El’s Motion to Strike Declaration

BACKGROUND 

This motion arises from a dispute regarding an Affidavit of Recession and Motion to Dismiss.

Plaintiff :Taquan-Rahshe :Gullett-El (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against defendants Scott Andrew Yang, David W. Slayton, George Gascon, Nathan Hochman and T. Blasi alleging 30 causes of action. 

On January 10, 2025, defendant Scott Andrew Yang (Judge Yang)’s Counsel filed a request for an automatic 30-day extension of time to file a responsive pleading and declaration of Sarah L. Overton (Overton).

Plaintiff now moves to strike the Overton Declaration and requests Default be entered against Judge Yang.

JUDICIAL NOTICE

            The Court grants Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11. The Court denies Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice Nos. 7, 9, 10.

            The Court grants Judge Yang’s request for judicial notice Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

LEGAL STANDARD

            The Court may strike any irrelevant, false or improper matter in a pleading, or all or any part of a pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of the state, court rule or order of the Court.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 436.)  A pleading is a demurrer, answer, complaint or cross-complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 435(a)(2).) 

DISCUSSION

Service of Motion to Strike

            Defendants contend that they were not served with the Motion to Strike until February 13, 2025.  (Frazier-Krane Decl. ¶ 2.)  Plaintiff filed the Motion to Strike on January 30, 2025, but did not serve notice to Judge Yang until February 10, 2025.  Plaintiff remedied this issue by seeking a new reservation date and serving the notice of new date on March 12, 2025, for the April 11, 2025 hearing date. 

Format Requirements

            In California, motions must comply with the California Rules of Court.  Except for a summary judgment or adjudication motion, no opening memorandum may exceed 15 pages.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(d).)  No reply may exceed 10 pages.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(d).)  It is within the Court’s discretion to refuse to consider oversized motions.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(g); 3.1300(d).)  Plaintiff’s motion is approximately 36 pages total, and Plaintiff’s reply is an additional 20 pages.

            Additionally, a brief or memorandum must not contain text smaller than 12-point, must be at least one-and-a-half spaced, and black or blue-black ink.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.104, 2.106, 2.108.)  Plaintiff’s over-length moving papers use numerous colors, font sizes, and improper spacing, making it difficult to read.  Much like oversize motions, it is within the Court’s discretion whether to consider improperly formatted motions.

            The Court cautions Plaintiff that future violations of rules about the length and format of pleadings may result in the Court striking the pleadings without reaching their merits. 

Motion to Strike

            Plaintiff moves to strike Judge Yang’s filing of the Overton Declaration & Request for Automatic 30-day Extension of Time to File.  Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff personally served Judge Yang on December 6, 2024.  Thus, according to Plaintiff, Judge Yang had until January 7, 2025, to file a response, or request a 30-day extension.  Judge Yang’s counsel filed for the 30-day extension on January 10, 2025. Defendant contends that Judge Yang was never personally served.  Thus, according to Defendant, the declaration requesting additional time to file a responsive pleading could not have been untimely. 

            The propriety of Judge Yang’s service is not determinative of this motion.  Plaintiff fails to cite any authority permitting the Court to strike a declaration.  Plaintiff provides authority under which the Court may be required to disregard an untimely demurrer due to prejudice to the Plaintiff, but does not cite authority which permits the Court to strike the declaration requesting a 30-day extension.  Plaintiff attempts to expand the definition of demurrer to include the declaration in support of the 30-day extension, but the declaration is separate from a demurrer.

            Plaintiff inappropriately attempts to expand in his reply the relief he requests through his Motion to Strike.  Plaintiff states new grounds under which the demurrer filed on February 10, 2025, should be stricken.  It is improper to change the scope of the motion in the reply.  (Campos v. Anderson (1997) 57 Cal.App.4^th 784, 794, fn 3; In re Marriage of Hoffmeister (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 1163, 1169; Mendoza v. Trans Valley Transport (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 748, 770.) 

CONCLUSION

            The Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Stike.

            Plaintiff to give notice.