Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22PSCV00588, Date: 2023-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00588    Hearing Date: April 3, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO STRIKE

MOVING PARTY:    Plaintiff Charles Yang

RESP. PARTY:         Defendants Trevor Lords, Beacon Healthcare Center

MOTION TO STRIKE

(CCP §§ 435, 435.5)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Charles Yang’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

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 March 20, 2023                                    [   ] Late                      [   ] None

REPLY:                     None                                                               [   ] Late                      [   ] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On June 15, 2022, Plaintiff Charles Yang (“Plaintiff”), in pro per, filed a complaint against Defendant Trevor Lords (“Lords”).  Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint naming Lords and Beacon Healthcare Center (“Defendants”).  Plaintiff alleged negligence, destruction of personal property, intentional infliction of emotional distress and medical malpractice.  Defendants filed an answer on November 23, 2022, correcting the name of defendant Beacon Healthcare Center to West Covina Care, Inc. dba Beacon Healthcare Center. 

On December 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to strike Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses, specifically the first, second and third affirmative defenses that plead lack of standing, lack of capacity, and lack of jurisdiction.  On March 20, 2023, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion.  No reply was filed. 

II.              Meet and Confer Requirement

“Before 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, subd. (a).) 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he met and conferred with Defendants prior to filing his Motion.  Defendant confirms that Plaintiff failed to do so (Opp. at p. 3) and Plaintiff failed to file the requisite declaration pursuant to CCP §435.5(a)(3).  However, rather than continuing the matter to allow Plaintiff to meet and confer, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for the reason set forth below.  

III.            Legal Standard & Discussion

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, subd. (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, subd. (b).)  

Motions to strike in limited jurisdiction courts, however, 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, subd. (d).)  

Here, in this limited civil action, Plaintiff seeks to strike Defendants’ affirmative defenses on the grounds that they are either immaterial and/or irrelevant.  Because Plaintiff’s Motion does not contend that the damages or relief sought are not supported by the allegations of the complaint, the Court hereby denies Plaintiff’s Motion.

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.