Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV01370, Date: 2023-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV01370    Hearing Date: February 27, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Steiger v. Nine Eighteen Twenty-First Street HOA, et al., Case No. 23SMCV01370

Hearing Date February 27, 2024

Plaintiff Steiger’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Second Amended Answer

On December 6, 2023 the court sustained plaintiff’s demurrer to defendants’ third through twenty-fourth affirmative defenses in the first amended answer, with twenty days leave to amend. Defendants filed their second amended answer (SAA) January 23, 2024. Plaintiff Steiger now moves to strike the SAA as untimely.

A plaintiff may move to strike out all or any part of a pleading “not drawn or filed in conformity with . . . an order of the court.” Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §435. The state policy favoring amendment of complaints is strong, especially with respect to amendment of answers. See, e.g. Husley v. Koehler (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1150, 1159.

Steiger is correct that the SAA was untimely filed. Defendants explain this untimeliness, stating it was the result of counsel’s illness and personal obligations. Karayan decl. ¶6. If the motion is granted, it would result in major prejudice to defendants, depriving them of the opportunity to respond to the claims against them. There is no evidence that denying the motion would result in any prejudice to plaintiff. Considering the above, and the state’s stated policy of liberality in allowing amendment to pleadings, the motion is DENIED.