Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 23STCV08440, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV08440    Hearing Date: November 6, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

            Defendant Dal-Tile, LLC’s motion to strike is GRANTED.

Background

            This is a toxic tort case arising from Plaintiff Soto-Rodriguez’ claim that he developed silicosis and consequential injuries through his employment working with stone products manufactured, distributed, and/or supplied by Defendants.

            On August 7, 2024, Plaintiffs Jose Guadalupe Soto-Rodriguez and Sara Sanches (“Plaintiffs”) filed the Second Amended Complaint (SAC), alleging: (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.

            Defendant Dal-Tile, LLC (“Dal-Tile”) now moves to strike Plaintiffs’ SAC.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 436 states the following:  

 “The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper:  

(a)¿Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.  

(b)¿Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.”

(Code Civ. Proc. § 436.)  

Discussion

Meet and Confer

            Dal-Tile’s Counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding this motion, but Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to respond. (Kavarian Decl., ¶¶ 3-5, Exh. A.) The Court finds the parties have failed to meet and confer in person or by telephone pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 435, subdivision (a). Nevertheless, the Court will address the merits of the motion.

Motion to Strike

Dal-Tile seeks to strike (1) two additional stone products (SAC, p. 33, lines 24-25.) and (2) allegations regarding Defendants Dal-Tile Distribution, LLC and Dal-Tile LLC’s corporate structure (SAC, ¶ 549-51.).

As to the two additional stone products, Dal-Tile notes that, during the hearing on its first motion to strike on January 24, 2024, the Court agreed with counsel that Plaintiffs must seek leave of court to amend the complaint if they sought to add additional stone products. (Kavarian Decl., ¶¶ 4-6.) Plaintiffs added “One Quartz” to the First Amended Complaint (FAC), and Dal-Tile filed another motion to strike. On July 16, 2024, the Court granted the motion to strike. Dal-Tile argues Plaintiffs have again added “One Quartz” and added another product, “One Quartz Surfaces” to the SAC. (Kavarian Decl., ¶ 9; SAC p. 33, lines 24-25.)

The right to amend a complaint without leave of court under Civil Code of Procedure section 472 is limited to the original complaint—there is no right to amend an amended complaint without leave of court. (Hedwall v. PCMV, LLC (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 564, 578-79.)

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have once again failed to seek leave to amend as directed by the Court. The Court grants the motion to strike both additional stone products, “One Quartz” and “One Quartz Surfaces” from the SAC.

As to the allegations regarding Defendants Dal-Tile Distribution, LLC and Dal-Tile LLC’s corporate structure, Dal-Tile argues Plaintiffs must have sought leave of court to make such amendment. (Kavarian Decl., ¶ 12; SAC, ¶ 549-51.) Dal-Tile notes that Plaintiffs filed the SAC in response to Defendant Arriaga USA, Inc.’s demurrer to the FAC, which was sustained by the Court on July 26, 2024. (Kavarian Decl., ¶ 10.) The Court gave Plaintiffs 15 days to amend the FAC. (Kavarian Decl., ¶ 11.) Dal-Tile argues the scope of the leave to amend was limited to as to allegations involving Defendant Arriaga USA, Inc., not Dal-Tile. (Id.)

“It is the rule that when a trial court sustains a demurrer with leave to amend, the scope of the grant of leave is ordinarily a limited one. It gives the pleader an opportunity to cure the defects in the particular causes of action to which the demurrer was sustained, but that is all.” (Community Water Coalition v. Santa Cruz County Local Agency Formation Com. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1329.)

The Court finds that by granting leave to amend after sustaining Defendant Arriaga USA, Inc.’s demurrer, Plaintiffs were only allowed to amend allegations relating to Defendant Arriaga USA, Inc. By adding allegations regarding Defendants Dal-Tile Distribution, LLC and Dal-Tile LLC’s corporate structure, Plaintiffs went outside the scope of the Court’s order granting leave to amend. If Plaintiffs seek to make such amendments, Plaintiffs must seek separate leave of Court. The Court grants the motion to strike SAC paragraphs 549 to 551.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant Dal-Tile, LLC’s motion to strike is granted.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  November 6, 2024

Hon. Jon R. Takasugi

Judge of the Superior Court