Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 22STLC05300 2023-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STLC05300, Date: 2023-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC05300 Hearing Date: January 5, 2023 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO STRIKE

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Crestwood Hills Association

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Timothy D. Rand-Lewis

MOTION TO STRIKE

(CCP §§ 435, 436, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Crestwood Hills Association’s Motion to Strike is DENIED.

The Court, on its own motion, STRIKES the Notice of Errata filed by Plaintiff Rand-Lewis on September 15, 2022.

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 December 21, 2022. [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: Filed on December 28, 2022. [ ] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On August 10, 2022, Plaintiff Timothy D. Rand-Lewis (“Plaintiff”) filed his complaint in limited jurisdiction court against Defendant Crestwood Hills Association (“Defendant”), alleging defamation, negligence, violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200, violation of the Unruh Act, and a general claim for “injunctive relief.” Plaintiff sought damages as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. Limited civil jurisdiction courts do not have authority to grant permanent injunctive relief or declaratory relief.

On September 8, 2022, Defendant filed a Special Motion to Strike (anti-SLAPP) and, based on Plaintiff requesting relief that is not available in a limited jurisdiction court, on September 12, 2022, Defendant also filed a motion to reclassify the case to unlimited jurisdiction on that basis. Because special motions to strike cannot be heard in limited jurisdiction courts, on September 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application to Strike Defendant’s Special Motion to Strike.

On September 13, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application and ordered the entire action to be reclassified as a civil unlimited case. (9-13-22 Minute Order.) The case was reclassified on September 19, 2022. (9-19-22 Notice of Reclassification.)

On September 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Errata” requesting that the Court strike the causes of action and remedies that he pleaded that caused the case to be reclassified, stating that his requests for declaratory and injunctive relief were included “due to inadvertence of counsel in using a prior complaint format.” (Notice of Errata p. 1.)

On September 21, 2022, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Notice of Errata (“Motion”), which was scheduled for a hearing on November 15, 2022. On September 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Default/Judgment. (9-26-22 Request for Entry of Default.) The Court entered default against Defendant on the same day, which was in error given that Defendant had filed a Special Motion to Strike that had not been heard. (Ibid.)

On September 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed a “Stipulation to the Reclassification of the Case from Civil Unlimited to Civil Limited.” However, this was not a stipulation between the parties – it was merely Plaintiff’s statement that the case should be reclassified based on his “Notice of Errata.” On October 18, 2022, Plaintiff also filed an Ex Parte Application for Order Reclassifying the Case as a Limited Civil Case. On October 19, 2022, the Court ordered the case to be reclassified to limited jurisdiction court. (10-19-22 Minute Order.) The case was reclassified as a limited civil case and reassigned to Department 25 of the Spring Street Courthouse. (10-28-22 Minute Order.)

On November 10, 2022, the Court denied Defendant’s Ex Parte Application for Order Striking Order Reclassifying and Reassigning Matter to Limited Civil Jurisdiction. (11-10-22 Minute Order.)

On November 29, the Court granted Defendant’s Ex Parte Application for an Order Setting Aside Default and vacated default against Defendant, entered on September 26, 2022. (11-29-22 Minute Order.)

On November 30, 2022, the Court scheduled the hearing on the instant Motion to Strike Notice of Errata to January 5, 2023, in Department 25 of the Spring Street Courthouse. (11-30-22 Minute Order.) Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Motion (“Opposition”) on December 21, 2022, and Defendant filed a Reply to the Opposition (“Reply”) on December 28, 2022.

II. Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of orders and filings in the instant case. (RJN Exs. 1-5.)

Although it is not necessary to take judicial notice of documents in the instant case, Defendant’s request is GRANTED. (Evid. Code., § 452(c), (d).)

III. 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).)

IV. Discussion

On September 15, 2022, in response to Defendant’s Motion to Reclassify the instant case as a civil unlimited case, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Errata” requesting that the Court strike the causes of action and remedies that he pleaded that caused the case to be reclassified. Plaintiff stated that his requests for declaratory and injunctive relief were included “due to inadvertence of counsel in using a prior complaint format.” (Notice of Errata, p. 1.)

On September 21, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to Strike Notice of Errata (“Motion”) on the basis that Plaintiff “may not disguise his improper, unverified amendment to his verified complaint as a notice of errata.” (Mot. p. 2.) Defendant cites to Code of Civil Procedure § 436 as a basis for the Court’s authority to strike the Notice of Errata. (Ibid. at p. 5.) It argues that Plaintiff is “improperly attempting, through his notice of errata, to file an amendment to his complaint, which is both procedurally and formally improper, thus subjecting it to a motion to strike.” (Ibid.) Furthermore, Plaintiff is prevented from amending the complaint to avoid Defendant’s pending anti-SLAPP motion as amendments may not be filed in response to an anti-SLAPP. (Ibid. at pp. 5-6, Code of Civ. Proc. § 472.)

Plaintiff opposes the Motion on several grounds. He argues that “Code of Civil Procedure §92 bars Defendant’s motion,” that Defendant’s Motion lacks legal or factual basis, and “Notice of Errata are routinely used for this type of correction” citing Code of Civil Procedure §§ 472 and 473. (Oppos. pp. 1-2.) Plaintiff argues that “Notice of Errata is permitted by law, as Plaintiff is permitted to correct mistakes pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §473(a)(1)” and it “is a proper mode of correction and one which Defendant can not move to be stricken.” (Ibid. at p. 5, citing to Code of Civ. Proc. § 436, 473(a)(1).) He states that “Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 does not bar this form of correction.” (Ibid.) Furthermore, Plaintiff argues that a “notice of errata is not a pleading subject to a motion to strike.” (Ibid. at p. 6.) Here, the “Notice of Errata was filed to clarify and correct scrivener’s errors in the Complaint…[which] are routinely used for this type of correction.” (Ibid.) It “is a proper form of correction, is not an amendment to the Complaint.” (Ibid.) Alternatively, if it is considered an amendment, Plaintiff did not need leave of court to amend the pleading at the time and Defendant’s improper anti-SLAPP motion did not bar the amendment. (Ibid. at pp. 7-8.)

Plaintiff also opposes Defendant’s attempt to reclassify the case and states that this issue has already been determined by the Court and thus, “Defendant is collaterally estopped from seeking reclassification of this matter.” (Ibid. at pp 5, 8-9.) He argues that “the Court sua sponte reclassified this case, without the benefit of having reviewed my Declaration admitting the mistake and waiving the claim for declaratory relief and/or permanent injunction.” (Rand Decl. ¶ 5.)

In its Reply, Defendant argus that “[a]s Plaintiff is attempting to amend his complaint via an improper procedure, a motion to strike Plaintiff’s NoE (or, functionally, to strike Plaintiff’s amended complaint) is proper.” (Reply p. 2.) Given that Plaintiff could not file an amended complaint, he improperly filed a Notice of Errata, which contains changes that “were not minor or unsubstantial but instead substantively amended the relief sought by Plaintiff in his complaint.” (Ibid. at p. 3.) Thus, “[a]s Plaintiff attempted to amend his complaint substantively, the Court should treat the NoE as an attempt to amend the complaint and thus the NoE should be subject to the same restrictions to which an attempt to ament [sic] the complaint is subject.” (Ibid.)

In response to Plaintiff’s opposition to reclassification, Defendant argues that “Plaintiff has achieved placement in limited civil jurisdiction via gamesmanship; that is, Plaintiff has sought to mislead the Court via his notice of errata, incredibly claiming that his request for declaratory and injunctive relief were mere scrivener’s errors.” (Ibid.) Defendant cites to Falahati v. Kondo, in which the Court found that the use of a notice of errata to amend the complaint and add defendant’s name in the caption “was an improper procedural maneuver” that deprived the defendant of his statutory rights. (Ibid.; Falahati v. Kondo (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 823, 834.)

Defendant requests the Court to use its “inherent powers are appropriately exercised here to convert the MtS into any procedurally proper motion or device to challenge Plaintiff’s gamesmanship.” (Ibid. at p. 4.)

Finally, Defendant states that it is not estopped from seeking reclassification because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that issue preclusion applies to the issue of reclassification. (Ibid. at p. 4.)

Analysis

Although 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,” the Court may own its own initiative strike matters “at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 92(d), 436.)

Here, the Court must deny Defendant’s Motion as it does not challenge the Notice of Errata on the basis of damages or relief sought.

However, the Court on its own initiative, strikes the Notice of Errata for the following reasons.

Code of Civil Procedure § 473(a) states that “[a] party may amend its pleading once without leave of the court at any time before the answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed, or after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed but before the demurrer or motion to strike is heard if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike. A party may amend the pleading after the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike, upon stipulation by the parties. The time for responding to an amended pleading shall be computed from the date of service of the amended pleading.” Furthermore, “[t]he court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 473(a)(1).)

According to California Rules of Court, rule 5.74, an “amended pleading” is one “that completely restates and supersedes the pleading it amends for all purposes” and an “amendment to a pleading” is one that “that modifies another pleading and alleges facts or requests relief materially different from the facts alleged or the relief requested in the modified pleading. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.74(a)(2)-(3).) An amendment to a pleading does not restate or supersede the modified pleading but must be read together with that pleading.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.74(a)(3).)

Furthermore, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, sets out the requirements for filing amended pleadings and amendments to pleadings.

The Court finds that nothing in the Code of Civil Procedure or the California Rules of Court allows a party to amend a pleading and make such substantial changes as altering the causes of action, by filing a “Notice of Errata.” Plaintiff himself has not provided the Court with any legal authority regarding the filing of Notice of Errata as all of Plaintiff’s citations pertain to amendments of pleadings. Plaintiff argues that Notice of Errata are routinely used for these types of corrections but has failed to provide the Court with citations to case law or other legal authorities that support this contention.

For these reasons, the Court finds that a Notice of Errata is not a proper procedural mechanism for amending a Complaint. A cause of action may be removed from a complaint through a dismissal or an amendment to the pleading.

The Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Strike. However, the Court, on its own motion, strikes the Notice of Errata filed by the Plaintiff on September 15, 2022.

V. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Defendant Crestwood Hills Association’s Motion to Strike is DENIED.

The Court, on its own motion, STRIKES Notice of Errata filed by Plaintiff Rand-Lewis on September 15, 2022.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.