Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV01588, Date: 2023-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV01588    Hearing Date: September 6, 2023    Dept: C

Valencia, et al. v. hyundai motor america

CASE NO.:  23NWCV01588

HEARING:  9/6/23 @ 10:30 AM

#12

Defendant’s Motion to Strike is DENIED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Defendant Hyundai Motor America (Defendant) moves to strike Paragraph 22 and other unspecified portions of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

Background

On May 23, 2023, Plaintiffs Roger Valencia and Sandra Cervantes (Plaintiffs) filed a Complaint against Defendant for alleged violations of the Song-Beverly Act for failure to repair or repurchase Plaintiffs’ vehicle.

Procedural Defect

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1322 requires that “[a] notice of motion to strike a portion of a pleading must quote in full the portions sought to be stricken except where the motion is to strike an entire paragraph, cause of action, count, or defense.”

Here Defendant has requested in its Notice that “the Prayer for Relief insofar as it relates to the second cause of action …” be struck from the Complaint. Thus, Plaintiff has not either quoted the portions sought to be struck or specified which paragraphs sought to be struck. Thus, the notice is procedurally defective as to Defendant’s request to strike unspecified portions of the Prayer for Relief.

Meet and Confer

The Court finds that Defendant complied with the meet and confer requirements in CCP § 435.5.

Legal Standard

Motions to strike are used to reach defects or objections to pleadings which are not challengeable by demurrer (i.e., words, phrases, prayer for damages, etc.). (CCP §§ 435, 436 & 437.) A motion to strike lies only where the pleading has irrelevant, false or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws. (C.C.P. § 436.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (C.C.P. § 437.)

Discussion

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs are not entitled to restitution under their Second Cause of Action for Violation of the Song-Beverly Act § 1793.2.

Plaintiffs have successfully pled a cause of action under Civil Code § 1793.2 which provides for restitution or replacement under Civil Code § 1794 as a remedy because they have satisfied the requirements of Civil Code § 1793.2(d). Defendants argue that restitution and replacement pursuant to Civil Code § 1794 are only available if Plaintiffs satisfy the requirements of Civil Code § 1793.2(d). Civil Code § 1793.2(d) provides “if the manufacturer or its representative in this state does not service or repair the goods to conform to the applicable express warranties after a reasonable number of attempts ….” Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendant has failed to conform their vehicle to the express warranties after a reasonable number of attempts. (Compl. ¶ 31.) Thus, Plaintiffs have successfully pled a cause of action under Civil Code § 1793.2 which provides for restitution or replacement under Civil Code § 1794. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Paragraph 22 denied.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Strike is DENIED. Defendant to file an answer within twenty days of this order.