Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 20STLC02507, Date: 2022-09-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STLC02507     Hearing Date: September 15, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff, Nicole Jackson

RESP. PARTY:         Defendant, Jorge Hernandez

MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER

(CCP §§ 435, 436, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Nicole Jackson’s Motion to Strike Answer is DENIED.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 [OK]

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 [OK]

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     [OK]

OPPOSITION:          Filed on August 24, 2022                                    [   ] Late                      [   ] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of September 13, 2022.                     [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On March 16, 2020, Plaintiff Nicole Jackson (“Plaintiff”), in propria persona, filed an action against Defendant Jorge Hernandez (“Defendant”) for general and motor vehicle negligence.  The action arises out of an automobile accident that allegedly occurred on March 16, 2018.  On April 15, 2020, Defendant filed an Answer denying all allegations in the Complaint.

On February 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer.  Defendant filed an Opposition on April 27, 2022.  Prior to the hearing, Plaintiff took the Motion off the calendar.

On July 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer.  On August 24, 2022, Defendant filed an Opposition.  No reply has been filed.

II.              Legal Standard

California law authorizes a party’s motion to strike matter from an opposing party’s pleading if it is irrelevant, false, or improper.  (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 435; 436(a).)  Motions may also target pleadings or parts of pleadings that are not filed or drawn in conformity with applicable laws, rules, or orders.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 436(b).)

However, motions to strike in limited jurisdiction courts may only challenge pleadings on the basis that “the damages or relief sought are not supported by the allegations of the complaint.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 92(d).)  Code of Civil Procedure also authorizes the Court to act on its own initiative to strike matter “at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 436.)

Finally, Code of Civil Procedure § 435.5 requires that “[b]efore filing a motion to strike pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that resolves the objections to be raised in the motion to strike.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 435.5(a).)

III.            Discussion

Plaintiff moves to strike Defendant’s Answer on the grounds that Defendant failed to properly serve the Answer on Plaintiff and Defendant should not have filed an Answer because Plaintiff has not yet served him with the Complaint.  (Mot. p. 3; Jackson Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.)

Defendant opposes the Motion stating that Plaintiff’s request is not permitted in a limited civil jurisdiction case.  (Oppos. p. 2.)  Furthermore, the Motion is not timely and was not preceded by any attempts to meet and confer with opposing counsel.  (Ibid.)  Plaintiff also claims not to have received the Answer but attaches it as Exhibit A to the instant Motion.  (Ibid.)

Plaintiff cannot obtain the requested relief through the Motion.  First, Plaintiff does not challenge the answer on any allowable basis.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 92(d).)  Second, Plaintiff has attached a copy of Defendant’s Answer to the Motion, showing that she has actual notice of the Answer.  (Jackson Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.)

Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED.  

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Jackson’s Motion to Strike Answer is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.