Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV00878, Date: 2023-08-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV00878, Date: 2023-08-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV00878 Hearing Date: August 10, 2023 Dept: C

GARFINKLE v. UNIVERSAL FITNESS CLUB NORWALK, LLC

CASE NO.: 23NWCV00878

HEARING: 08/10/23

I. Defendant XI ENTERPRISE, INC’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint is DENIED.

II. Defendant UNIVERSAL FITNESS CLUB NORWALK, LLC’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint is DENIED.

Defendants to answer within 20 days.

Opposing Party to Give Notice.

This commercial unlawful detainer action was filed by Plaintiffs on March 22, 2023. On June 5, 2023, the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed.

In separately filed (but substantively similar) Motions to Strike, Defendants XI ENTERPRISE, INC. and UNIVERSAL FITNESS CLUP NORWALK, LLC (collectively “Defendants”) move to strike Attachment Number 17 from Plaintiff’s FAC. Attachment Number 17 consists of allegations for damages arising out of Defendants’ failure to perform ADA repairs, failure to maintain common areas, and failure to maintain the roof and other aspects of the leased premises. Defendants argue that these damages go beyond the scope of what is awardable in unlawful detainer actions.

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 to strike the entirety of Attachment Number 17 is DENIED.

CCP §1161(f) states that an unlawful detainer action can seek possession of a premises for waste committed upon the real property. Indeed, an unlawful detainer action can be premised on acts constituting waste. (Freeze v. Brinson (1991) 3 Cal.4th 1, 3-4.) 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.)

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 17 does not expressly seek monetary damages arising out of Defendants’ alleged waste. With respect to Plaintiff’s allegations concerning Defendants’ waste, the Court must accept the factual allegations set forth in the SAC as true at this stage in the litigation.