Judge Lisa K. Sepe-Wiesenfeld, Case Number: 22SMCV02528, Date: 2023-10-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lisa K. Sepe-Wiesenfeld, Case: 22SMCV02528, Date: 2023-10-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02528 Hearing Date: October 6, 2023 Dept: N

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Law Office of Fari Bari Nejadpour and Cross-Defendants Fari Bari Nejadpour, LA Law, Inc., Law Offices of LA Law Inc. APC, and Nejadpour & Associates’ Motion to Strike is DENIED.

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Law Office of Fari Bari Nejadpour and Cross-Defendants Fari Bari Nejadpour, LA Law, Inc., Law Offices of LA Law Inc. APC, and Nejadpour & Associates shall file and serve an answer to the First Amended Cross-Complaint within ten (10) days of entry of this order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(j).)

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Law Office of Fari Bari Nejadpour and Cross-Defendants Fari Bari Nejadpour, LA Law, Inc., Law Offices of LA Law Inc. APC, and Nejadpour & Associates to give notice.

REASONING

The court may, upon motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a).) The court may also strike 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).) The grounds for a motion to strike are that the pleading has irrelevant, false, or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (See Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349 [court shall not “sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is any reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment”]; Kong v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency (2002) 108 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1037 [“A demurrer should not be sustained without leave to amend if the complaint, liberally construed, can state a cause of action under any theory or if there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured by amendment.”]; Vaccaro v. Kaiman (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 761, 768 [“When the defect which justifies striking a complaint is capable of cure, the court should allow leave to amend.”].) The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Law Office of Fari Bari Nejadpour and Cross-Defendants Fari Bari Nejadpour, LA Law, Inc., Law Offices of LA Law Inc. APC, and Nejadpour & Associates (“Cross-Defendants”) move to strike paragraphs 57, 58, 113, 114, 173, 174, 239, 240, 314, and 315 from Defendant/Cross-Complainant Farnaz Ayazi (“Defendant”)’s First Amended Cross-Complaint as irrelevant, immaterial, and improper matter because the paragraphs are inadmissible character evidence, and the allegations are included to prejudice the jury.

Allegations are not evidence. (See, e.g., Sheard v. Superior Court (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 207, 212 [“This complaint was unverified and therefore could not serve as an affidavit”].) The Court will not strike allegations simply because they may lead to an attempt to introduce evidence which may be subject to an objection. Further, the allegations provide background information for Defendant’s claims, and Cross-Defendants provide no other cognizable basis for striking these allegations.

Accordingly, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Law Office of Fari Bari Nejadpour and Cross-Defendants Fari Bari Nejadpour, LA Law, Inc., Law Offices of LA Law Inc. APC, and Nejadpour & Associates’ Motion to Strike is DENIED. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Law Office of Fari Bari Nejadpour and Cross-Defendants Fari Bari Nejadpour, LA Law, Inc., Law Offices of LA Law Inc. APC, and Nejadpour & Associates shall file and serve an answer to the First Amended Cross-Complaint within ten (10) days of entry of this order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(j).) Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Law Office of Fari Bari Nejadpour and Cross-Defendants Fari Bari Nejadpour, LA Law, Inc., Law Offices of LA Law Inc. APC, and Nejadpour & Associates to give notice.