Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 23STCV13611, Date: 2024-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV13611    Hearing Date: January 23, 2024    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Emanuele Giacometti (“Plaintiff”) moves to strike the Answer filed by Defendants Giorgio Baldi, Inc. (“GBI”) and Elena Baldi (collectively, “Defendants”).

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion, which is untimely. 

Background

This action concerns Plaintiff’s employment with GBI.

Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants on June 13, 2023, raising claims for (1) failure to provide rest periods; (2) failure to provide meal periods; (3) failure to pay wages due upon termination; (4) conversion; (5) retaliation; and (6) unfair competition.

Defendants filed an Answer on September 14, 2023.

Plaintiff filed this motion on October 25, 2023. Defendants filed an opposition. Plaintiff did not file a reply.

Legal Standard

The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436(a).) The court may also strike 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(b).) The grounds for a motion to strike are that the pleading has irrelevant, false or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)

A demurrer to an answer may be brought on one of three grounds: (1) the answer does not include facts sufficient to constitute a defense; (2) uncertainty; and (3) the facts, as pleaded, are insufficient to determine whether an alleged contract in the answer is written or oral. Code Civ. Proc., § 430.20. 

Defenses should be relevant to a plaintiff’s legal claims and averred carefully, and with as much detail as the facts constituting the corresponding causes of action in the complaint.  FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 384 (FPI Development). They should not be proffered in the form of “terse legal conclusions.” (Ibid.)

Discussion

Timeliness

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s motion is untimely. Defendants filed the Answer on September 14, 2023. Plaintiff filed this motion on October 25, 2023.

“Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1); see also City and County of San Francisco v. Strahlendorf (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1911, 1913 [motion to strike unavailable after time to file responsive pleading had passed].)

“A party who has filed a complaint or cross-complaint may, within 10 days after service of the answer to his pleading, demur to the answer.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.40, subd. (b).)

Here, Plaintiff’s motion to strike the Answer was filed far more than ten days after the Answer. The motion to strike is therefore time-barred.