Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: SC129036, Date: 2025-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: SC129036    Hearing Date: May 15, 2025    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Weber v. Taylor, Case no. SC129036

Hearing date May 15, 2025

Plaintiff’s Motions to Strike, for Terminating Sanctions and to Enter Default

Plaintiff Weber alleges she provided defendant Taylor $150,000 to start a cannabis delivery service. Weber alleges Taylor’s representations regarding the business were fraudulent, and he kept the money without investing it as promised. Weber further alleges defendant Burch conspired with Taylor to defraud her; the court granted Burch’s motion for summary judgment. Min. Order 6/15/23.

Weber, in pro per, moves to strike “defendant’s specific false statements made in pleadings, comments and declarations.” Weber also moves for terminating sanctions and for entry of default against Taylor “in equity.” Weber requests judicial notice of over 800 pages of documents. Weber’s motions comprise over 500 additional pages of argument and exhibits.

Weber’s requests for judicial notice fail to concisely set out what documents are being subject to judicial notice. No table of contents or summary is provided. The court declines to review each individual exhibit to determine on what basis Weber argues judicial notice is proper. It is Weber’s responsibility to identify individual exhibits and assert a basis for judicial notice. DENIED.

Weber further requests the court take note of, and rule on, two motions in limine filed 4/28/25 which request terminating and evidentiary sanctions. Motions in limine are pre-trial evidentiary motions. There is no basis to consider the motions in limine until trial. DENIED.

Weber moves for an order striking Taylor’s “specific false statements.” Mtn. 1:1-4. Weber asserts Taylor “made false statements, and Plaintiff Weber suffered severe harm and reputational duress based on false rhetoric that was never in conformity with the laws.” Mtn 1:8-10. Weber’s motion demands the court strike the entirety of Taylor’s statements, affirmative defenses and pleadings asserting Weber was party to an “ill-gotten illegal crime scheme.” Mtn. 4:8.

Weber’s motion to strike is not well taken. While Cal. Code of Civil Procedure §436(a)(b) allows a motion to strike “any irrelevant, false, or improper matter[s] asserted in any pleading or portion of a pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state,” it does not empower the court to strike an entire line of discourse prevalent in this case since 2018.

Weber fails to identify specific portions of pleadings or allegations she seeks to strike, instead asking the court to “carefully identify specific false statements relevant to alleged “illegal drug crime schemes” and strike them for being misleading, inaccurate, and for lack of evidence.” Mtn. 15:13-15. The burden is Weber to identify the specific pleadings (or portions thereof) she seeks to strike; it is not for the court to review documents to try to figure out what Weber seeks to have striken and provide a legal basis on which to strike. DENIED.

Weber moves for terminating sanctions and to enter default judgment against Taylor. Weber argues she has been “substantially injured due to inconsistencies in the case and Taylor’s own actions.” Mtn. 2:16. Weber argues the court has an obligation under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §475 to ensure that an appealing or complaining party does not suffer substantial injury. Weber asserts the court’s failure to rule on her motions in limine prior to granting Burch’s MSJ constitutes error which caused Weber substantial injury. Weber argues the only way to address this injury is to immediately terminate Taylor’s defense and enter default against him.

Weber argues Taylor and Burch abused the discovery process. Weber further argues granting Burch’s MSJ had the effect of bifurcating the trial and made a single unified judgment impossible. This argument is unavailing. The court was required to consider Burch’s MSJ. The ruling on that motion was made independent of any potential consequences on an eventual trial.

Further, Weber fails to specifically identify instances of discovery abuse or noncompliance, asserting Taylor pleading his fifth amendment rights violated court orders. Invoking the fifth amendment is a constitutional right. Weber directs the court to “the comprehensive 1058-Page Evidentiary Exhibit of Material Facts of Evidence.” Mtn. 1:23-24. As previously discussed, it is Weber’s responsibility to direct the court to relevant evidence, not to ask the court to find evidentiary support for her positions and arguments.

Weber’s argument is not well taken. There is no legal obligation to rule on a motion in limine prior to trial. See CRC 3.1112(f). The court’s decision not to rule on motions in limine does not constitute error. Weber fails to state a legal basis or cognizable reason to impose terminating sanctions. DENIED.