Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case 21STCV24748 2023-04-04 Tentative Ruling

On July 6, 2021, plaintiff Ivan Mendez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Tessa Nicole Vaughn (“Defendant”) and Does 1-50 for injuries arising out July 15, 2019 motor vehicle accident.

On February 15, 2023, Defendant filed this motion to strike Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages as set forth in Plaintiff’s Statement of Damages and references to Doe Defendants in Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff opposes and Defendant replies.

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, subd. (a); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782 [“Matter in a pleading which is not essential to the claim is surplusage; probative facts are surplusage and may be stricken out or disregarded”].) The court may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with California law, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).) An immaterial or irrelevant allegation is one that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense; is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense; or a demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10, subd. (b).) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.) For the purposes of a motion to strike, the term “pleading” means a demurrer, answer, complaint, or cross-complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.)

“Before filing a motion to strike . . . 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 if an agreement can be reached that resolves the objections to be raised in the motion to strike.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a).) If no agreement is reached, the moving party shall file and serve with the motion to strike a declaration stating either: (1) the means by which the parties met and conferred and that the parties did not reach an agreement, or (2) that the party who filed the pleading failed to respond to the meet and confer request or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a)(3).)

Defendant requests judicial notice of Plaintiff’s complaint and Plaintiff’s Statement of Damages. As to Plaintiff’s complaint, the unopposed request is GRANTED. (Evid. Code., § 452, subd. (d).) As to Plaintiff’s Statement of Damages, the request is denied. The Statement of Damages is not filed with the Court. (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.250, subd. (a)(20).)

Before filing a motion to strike, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who has filed the pleading and shall file a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a).) Defendant has satisfied this requirement. (See Kahen Decl.)

Defendant seeks to strike Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages as set forth in Plaintiff’s Statement of Damages. Plaintiff served Defendant with the Statement of Damages and filed proof of service of the same on January 24, 2023.

Defendant’s request is improper. Motions to strike are aimed at pleadings. For the purposes of a motion to strike, the term “pleading” means a demurrer, answer, complaint, or cross-complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.) A statement of damages does not fall within the definition of “pleading.” Further, as Plaintiff points out, the complaint does not indicate that Plaintiff is seeking punitive damages. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to strike punitive damages from Plaintiff’s Statement of Damages is DENIED.

Defendant next seeks to strike paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of the Complaint in their entirety because they are immaterial and irrelevant in a case concerning a garden variety motor vehicle accident. Those allegations relate to Doe Defendants 20-30, 30-40, and 1-20, respectively. Plaintiff argues that Defendant fails to demonstrate good cause for striking allegations of Doe Defendants in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4.

A review of the Complaint does not support Defendant’s position. The at-issue allegations are as follows:

2. At all times herein mentioned, defendants, DOES 20 through 30, inclusive, and each of them, were doctors, physicians, nurses, health care providers and the like who treated and cared for plaintiffs herein and who were responsible in some manner for the plaintiff’s injuries and damages as more fully set forth herein.

3. At all times herein mentioned, defendants, DOES 31 through 40, inclusive, and each of them, were manufacturers, suppliers and distributors of some unknown product, which was responsible in part for plaintiff’s injuries and damages as more fully set forth herein.

4. At all times herein mentioned, defendants, DOES 1 through 20, and each of them, were business entities, form unknown, duly qualified to do business and lawfully doing business in the County of Los Angles [sic], State of California.

(Complaint, ¶¶ 2-4.) The complaint further alleges that Defendant and “Does 1-50 inclusive and each of them, were the owners and operators of a vehicle, bearing California license plates, hereinafter referred to as defendants’ vehicle.”

Contrary to Defendant’s contention, the foregoing allegations are relevant. The complaint alleges that Doe Defendants were responsible in some way for Plaintiff’s injuries. A court reads allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth. (Clausen v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.) Defendant fails to demonstrate by citation to authority or through analysis that she is entitled to an order striking paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of Plaintiff’s complaint.

In opposition, Plaintiff requests imposition of sanctions against Defendant. The request is DENIED.

Defendant is ordered to file and serve their responsive pleading within 30 days of this order.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Hon. Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court