Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01005, Date: 2023-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01005    Hearing Date: February 14, 2023    Dept: C

ZHENG, et al. v. SOUTHLAND TRANSIT INC, et al.

CASE NO.:  22NWCV01005

HEARING:  2/14/23 @ 9:30 AM

#2

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Southland Transit Inc., and Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (by joinder)’s motion to strike is GRANTED.  As stricken, Defendants are ORDERED to file and serve their Answers within 10 days.

Moving Parties to give NOTICE.

Defendants Southland Transit Inc. and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority move to strike improper allegations.

“The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper:  (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.  (b) 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.”  (CCP § 436.)

“(a) A material allegation in a pleading is one essential to the claim or defense and which could not be stricken from the pleading without leaving it insufficient as to that claim or defense.  (b) An immaterial allegation in a pleading is any of the following:  (1) An allegation that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense. (2) An allegation that is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense. (3) A demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint or cross-complaint.  (c) An “immaterial allegation” means “irrelevant matter” as that term is used in Section 436.”  (CCP § 431.10.)

This is a motor vehicle action filed by Plaintiffs Zheng, Li, and Tsai.  On February 8, 2022, at approximately 6:15 p.m., Plaintiff Zheng (driver), along with Plaintiffs Li and Tsai (passengers)’s vehicle was rear-ended by a bus operated by Defendants Sandra Schriener (driver) and Southland Transit, Inc.  (Complaint, ¶¶ 4, 9-12.)  Based thereon, the Complaint asserts causes of action for:

1.    Negligence

2.    Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision, Retention

Defendants contend that the Traffic Collision Report is irrelevant because it is not admissible evidence.  (Veh. Code § 20013.)

Veh. Code § 20013 provides, “No such accident report shall be used as evidence in any trial, civil or criminal, arising out of an accident, except that the department shall furnish upon demand of any person who has, or claims to have, made such a report or upon demand of any court, a certificate showing that a specified accident report has or has not been made to the department solely to prove a compliance or failure to comply with the requirement that such a report be made to the department.”

The court finds that the allegations at 3:11-4:2, 4:7-8, and 4:25 – 5:4, referencing the Traffic Collision Report, are improper matter not drawn in conformity with the laws of this state. 

At this pleading stage, this court is not making any evidentiary determinations, and Plaintiffs preserve their right to seek to admit the evidence, if they so choose, with the trial judge.  However, at this stage in the litigation, the matters are improperly pled in the Complaint.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED, and the allegations are ordered stricken.