TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Surveillance Security, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Punitive Damages is DENIED.

Defendant Surveillance Security, Inc. 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.)

Defendant Surveillance Security, Inc. (“Defendant”) has filed a motion to strike Plaintiff Sandeneta Robison (“Plaintiff”)’s claims and prayer for punitive damages against Defendant. On March 22, 2024, Defendant filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint. On April 4, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to strike. First, Code of Civil Procedure section 435, subdivision (b)(1), states that a motion to strike must be made within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, and Defendant states in the declaration supporting the motion, filed separately on April 11, 2024, that Plaintiff’s counsel had granted an extension to respond to the complaint until March 28, 2024, and the motion to strike was filed after that date. More importantly, case law makes clear that “a defendant can move to strike a complaint only before he has answered it and not afterward.” (Adohr Milk Farms, Inc. v. Love (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 366, 371.) Accordingly, Defendant Surveillance Security, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Punitive Damages is DENIED.