Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22STCV23333, Date: 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23333    Hearing Date: December 7, 2022    Dept: 28

Defendant Tina LeeAnn Washington’s Motion to Strike.

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On July 19, 2022, Plaintiff Marco Polo Lucas (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Tina LeeAnn Washington (“Washington”) and Devine Intermodel (“Intermodel”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

On November 4, 2022, Washington filed a Motion to Strike to be heard December 7, 2022.

Trial is currently set for January 16, 2024.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Washington requests the Court strike the complaint as Plaintiff failed to attach the cause of action attachments.

LEGAL STANDARD

“Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof, but this time limitation shall not apply to motions specified in subdivision (e).”  (CCP § 435(b)(1), italics added.)  “A notice of motion to strike must be given within the time allowed to plead, and if a demurrer is interposed, concurrently therewith, and must be noticed for hearing and heard at the same time as the demurrer.”  (CRC 3.1322(b), italic added.)  “The defendant shall answer the amendments, or the complaint as amended, within 30 days after service thereof, or such other time as the court may direct, and judgment by default may be entered upon failure to answer, as in other cases.”  (CCP § 471.5(a).)

“The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.”  (CCP § 437(a).)  The court looks to whether “the complaint alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action or discloses a complete defense.”  (Ivanoff v. Brank of Am., N.A. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 719, 725.)  The court “assume[s] the truth of the properly pleaded factual allegations, facts that reasonably can be inferred from those expressly pleaded and matters of which judicial notice has been taken.”  (Id.)  “The court does not, however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law.  [Citation.]”  (Durell v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.)

DISCUSSION

Washington requests the Court strike the complaint as it is procedurally defective. In Plaintiff’s form complaint, Plaintiff identified he was bringing two causes of action: motor vehicle negligence and general negligence. However, Plaintiff did not attach any cause of action attachments providing information on the causes of action. Plaintiff has failed to state a proper cause of action. The Court grants the motion.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Tina LeeAnn Washington’s Motion to Strike is GRANTED, with 30 days leave to amend.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.