Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00179, Date: 2023-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00179    Hearing Date: February 23, 2023    Dept: C

RAMOSO v. SOUTHEAST LOS ANGELES COUNTY WORKFORCE

CASE NO.:  22NWCV00179

HEARING:  02/23/23

#5

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant SOUTHEAST LOS ANGELES COUNTY WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is DENIED.

Opposing Party to give notice.

This action was filed by Plaintiff TRIXIE RAMOSO (“Plaintiff”) on March 14, 2022. Plaintiff asserts that she was terminated based on her disability and SOUTHEAST LOS ANGELES COUNTY WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD’s (“SELACO”) refusal to accommodate her disability. Plaintiff further alleges that she had to endure harassment prior to her termination.

SELACO moves to strike all allegations asserting or inferring that SELACO is directly liable for the common law torts in the Ninth and Tenth Causes of Action.

A motion to strike lies either when (1) there is “irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading”; or (2) to strike any pleading or part thereof “not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule or order of court.” (CCP §436.)

The Motion is DENIED as to the requests to strike Plaintiff’s factual allegations. The facts identified by SELACO were seemingly inserted to support Plaintiff’s vicarious liability claims. The Court cannot make factual determinations in response to a Motion to Strike.  (See Aubry v. Tri-City Hosp. Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-967.) The Court must accept the factual allegations set forth in the Complaint as true at this stage in the litigation. The Motion to Strike is DENIED.