Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV38729, Date: 2023-10-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV38729    Hearing Date: February 16, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Dal-Tile Distribution, LLC (“Moving Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs

The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.  

BACKGROUND

The currently operative second amended complaint (the “SAC”), filed on November 21, 2023, alleges: (1) negligence; (2) strict liability – warning defect; (3) strict liability – design defect; (4) fraudulent concealment; (5) breach of implied warranties; and (6) loss of consortium.

On December 8, 2023, Moving Defendant filed a motion to strike portions of the SAC (the “Motion”). 

DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer

The meet and confer requirement has been met.

Legal Standard

Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 436, the court may, upon a motion made pursuant to CCP section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out any pleading or part thereof not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule or order of court.  (CCP § 436, subds. (a)-(b).)  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, subd. (a).)  The allegations of the complaint are presumed true; they are read as a whole and in context.  (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.)  A motion to strike should not be a procedural “line item veto” for the civil defendant.  (PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1683.)  Pleadings are to be construed liberally with a view to substantial justice.  (CCP § 452.)

“And Other Crystalline-Silica Containing Products”

            Pages 31-32 of the SAC list the products manufactured by Moving Defendant to which Plaintiffs were allegedly exposed.  The last item on the list states: “And other stone products to be identified during the course of discovery.”  (SAC p. 32:4.)  Moving Defendant argues that this allegation is not pled in accordance with Bockrath v. Adlrich Chemical Company, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 71 (“Bockrath”). Bockrath addressed the pleading standard for products liability complaints and holds that plaintiffs in toxic injury cases are required to plead specific facts regarding causation of the injuries because of “complicated and possibly esoteric medical causation issues.”  (Id. at 79.)  The Bockrath court noted that “the law cannot tolerate lawsuits by prospecting plaintiffs who sue multiple defendants on speculation that their products may have caused harm over time through exposure to toxins in them, and who thereafter try to learn through discovery whether their speculation is well founded."  (Id.)  The Bockrath court also held that plaintiffs may, and should, allege the foregoing facts succinctly, and may do so in a conclusory fashion if their knowledge of the precise cause of injury is limited.  (Id. at 80.)  If the plaintiff does not believe the requisite evidence exists but does actually believe that it is likely to be discovered later, after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, the complaint must so state.  (See id. at 82.)

Moving Defendant argues that Bockrath requires plaintiffs to plead each product that allegedly caused their injuries.  (Id. at 80.)  The Court is not persuaded by this argument.  The SAC identifies known products containing silica that caused Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries, and the catch-all allegation notes the possibility of exposure to additional silica-containing products manufactured by Moving Defendant about which Plaintiffs do not currently have knowledge.  The Court finds that the level of detail in the SAC is consistent with the requirements of Bockrath and therefore DENIES the Motion as to this allegation.

Other Allegations

            The opposition papers do not include arguments that respond to the Motion’s arguments regarding the allegations in Paragraphs 465 and 466 of the SAC, and the Court finds that Plaintiffs have conceded this argument to Moving Defendant.  (See Nelson v. Pearson Ford Co. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 983, 1021.)  The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion as to Paragraphs 465 and 466 without leave to amend. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

        Dated this 16th day of February 2024