Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 24SMCV00144, Date: 2025-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV00144, Date: 2025-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV00144 Hearing Date: January 17, 2025 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Ferrazzi Greenlight v. Whitfield, Case no. 24SMCV00144

Hearing date January 17, 2025

Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of the SACC

Plaintiffs/cross-defendant Ferrazzi Greenlight (“FG”) sues defendants/cross-complainants Whitfield and Wakefield for wrongful use of confidential or proprietary information to operate a competing business. Defendants/cross-complainants filed the second amended cross-complaint for fraud, IIED and breach of contract against cross-defendants FG and Keith Ferrazzi 11/27/24. Cross-defendants move to strike portions of the SACC alleged to be irrelevant, immaterial or improper per Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 431.10, 435 and 436. Cross-complainants oppose.

A motion to strike permits the court to “[s]trike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.” Code Civ. Proc. §436(a); see also Garcia v. Sterling (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 17, 20. An “immaterial allegation” is any of the following: (1) an allegation that is not essential to the statement of a claim; (2) an allegation that is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim; (3) a demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint or cross-complaint. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §431.10(b). Motions to strike can reach pleading defects that are not challengeable by demurrer, including conclusory allegations and substantive defects affecting only a portion of a claim. See, e.g., PH II, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1682. “Motions to strike can also be of utility” where, e.g., parties include extraneous matters or exhibits “entirely unnecessary to a pleading.” See Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 499.

Both parties point to the court’s overruling of FG’s previous demurrer to the FACC as support for their respective arguments. Cross-defendants argue the court already found the allegations in the FACC to be sufficient, demonstrating the irrelevance of the additional allegations in the SACC targeted in the instant motion.

Cross-complainants argue cross-defendants’ previously asserted allegations in the FACC were insufficient, so they cannot reasonably move to strike the supplemental allegations. Cross-complainants assert cross-defendants should be barred from striking any allegations offered as to COAs that the court previously found sufficient. The court will consider the instant motion without substituting its previous reasoning for current analysis.

Cross-defendants argue allegations pertaining to: (1) unidentified employees, comments and complaints by such employees and past company events; (2) psilocybin, drug use or drug-related conduct; (3) mandatory call-recording practices; (4) FG’s management, HR and other company operations; and (5) Wakefield’s duties at FG regarding Ferrazzi and Ferrazzi’s family are all irrelevant and should be struck. Cross-defendants argue the COAs in the cross complaint are based on a theory that Whitfield was fraudulently induced into an employment contract and subsequently denied pay he to which he was entitled. Cross-defendants argue allegations of anonymous employee complaints, drug use, call recording, lack of sufficient HR and Ferrazzi abusing his position are not pertinent to the COAs pled.

Cross-defendants argue allegations of employee complaints both online and in-person, a company policy of illegally recording calls, and Ferrazzi pressuring employees to take illegal drugs are extraneous.

Cross-complainants argue the breach of contract COA arises from harassment, so cross-complainants must plead allegations of “severe and pervasive” harassment. Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal. App. 4th 1108, 1122-1123. Cross-complainants argue allegations of other employees’ complaints demonstrate a hostile work environment. Hostile conduct directed at other employees may be relevant to whether a plaintiff experienced a hostile work environment if plaintiff was exposed to the conduct and the conduct would have seriously affected the psychological well-being of a reasonable employee. Beyda v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 511, 517. Cross-complainants argue allegations of being forced to take illegal drugs in the work place and illegally record calls also demonstrate a hostile work environment. Cross-complainants’ allegations of employee complaints, forced drug use and mandatory illegal activity are relevant.

Cross-defendants argue allegations of mismanagement and lack of an HR department are extraneous to cross-complainant’s claims. Cross-complainants do not address this argument nor explain the relevance of the targeted allegations. No COAs arising from alleged mismanagement or negligent supervision are pled; the relevance of the targeted allegations is unclear. Cross-complainants also do not address cross-defendants’ arguments regarding allegations that Ferrazzi required Wakefield to make personal appointments. Instead, cross-complainants argue the instant motion is improper under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §436, so should be denied in its entirety. This is unavailing; cross-defendants are within their rights to challenge allegations they argue to be irrelevant, false or improper.

The court cannot read relevance into an allegation. The relevance of said allegations not being readily ascertainable, cross-defendants’ requests to strike paragraphs 23, 25:11-16, 26, 27, and 38: 10-13 are proper. GRANTED as above.