Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 23STCV31600, Date: 2025-02-05 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: February 5, 2025

Case Name: Rodriguez, et al. v. Architectural Surfaces Group, LLC, et al.

Case No.: 23STCV29755  

Matter: Motion to Strike

Moving Party: Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion to Strike is granted.

Moving party to give notice.

The Court encourages all parties to appear remotely via LA CourtConnect.  If submitting on the Court's tentative ruling, please follow the instructions provided above.

On September 12, 2024, Plaintiffs Evelin Liseth Gonzalez Rodriguez, individually and as successor-in-interest of her deceased husband, Wilmer Ruben Martinez Paredes, Brianna Magali Martinez Gonzalez, Andy Ruben Martinez, and Aliyah Liseth Martinez Gonzalez filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) for (1) negligence, (2) strict liability—warning defect, (3) strict liability—design defect, (4) fraudulent concealment, and (5) breach of implied warranties.  

Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation seeks to strike “the Fourth Cause of Action for Fraudulent Concealment from Plaintiffs’ SAC because this Court already sustained Costco’s Demurrer to this exact same cause of action in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint [ ] on August 14, 2024.”  Costco also seeks to strike the claim for punitive damages against it.

Motions to strike are used to challenge defects in the pleadings not subject to demurrer.  Any party may move to strike the whole or any part of a pleading within the time allotted to respond to the pleading.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 435(b)(1).)  The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the Court is required to take judicial notice.  (Id. § 437(a).)  The Court may strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading, and strike out 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.  (Id. § 436.)  An “irrelevant” matter includes any “demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint or cross-complaint.”  (Id. § 431.10(b)(3), (c); see also Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1036-1042.)

Costco is correct, and there is no opposition.  Therefore, the Motion to Strike is granted, without leave to amend.

Moving party to give notice to give notice.