Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV47957, Date: 2023-08-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV47957 Hearing Date: February 28, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On December 16, 2020, Plaintiff Carmen Beatriz Rivera (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Joaquin Medina (“Medina”), and Does 1-10 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On October 1, 2021, Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority dba Metro (erroneously sued and served as Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority) (“Metro”) filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Patricia Sarmiento (“Sarmiento”), Plaintiff, and Roes 1-10 for comparative indemnity and apportionment of fault, total equitable indemnity, declaratory relief, and negligence and property damage.
On May 25, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel.
On August 24, 2023, Medina filed an answer to the complaint.
On January 25, 2024, Sarmiento and Plaintiff (“Cross-Defendants”) filed a motion to strike portions of Metro’s cross-complaint, to be heard on February 28, 2024. On February 14, 2024, Metro filed an opposition. On February 21, 2024, Cross-Defendants filed a reply.
Trial is currently scheduled for October 14, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Cross-Defendants ask the Court to strike Metro’s claim for negligence and property damage and request for attorneys’ fees.
Metro asks the Court to deny the motion to strike the request for attorneys' fees.
LEGAL STANDARD
“Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1).) The Court may “[s]trike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a).) “The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437, subd. (a).) “Where the motion to strike is based on matter of which the court may take judicial notice pursuant to Section 452 or 453 of the Evidence Code, such matter shall be specified in the notice of motion, or in the supporting points and authorities, except as the court may otherwise permit.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437, subd. (b).)
“In passing on the correctness of a ruling on a motion to strike, judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth.” (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255 (Clauson).) “In ruling on a motion to strike, courts do not read allegations in isolation.” (Ibid.)
DISCUSSION
A. Plaintiff’s complaint
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that on April 24 or 25, 2020, at the intersection of Spring Street and 1st Street in Los Angeles, a Metro vehicle operated by Medina in the course of his employment collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle, causing personal injuries and property damage.
B. Metro’s cross-complaint
Metro’s cross-complaint alleges that Metro is not liable for the events described in Plaintiff’s complaint. Instead, Metro alleges, Cross-Defendants were responsible, in whole or in part, for Plaintiff’s injuries.
In the cross-complaint's fourth cause of action for negligence and property damage, Metro alleges that “[a]s a legal result of the negligence of Cross-Defendants, and each of them, [Metro] has been damaged in that its vehicle sustained property damage which required repair” and Metro “sustained a loss of use of its vehicle . . . .”
The cross-complaint’s prayer includes a request for “costs and expenses incurred in the defense of this matter and in bringing this Cross Complaint, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.”
C. Legal arguments
1. The property damage claim
Cross-Defendants ask the Court to strike the cross-complaint’s fourth cause of action because “the property damage portion of this action has been resolved in [Metro’s] favor . . . .” According to Cross-Defendants, on or about August 18, 2021, Metro’s representative, Carl Warren & Company, submitted a demand to Cross-Defendants’ carrier, GEICO, for reimbursement of the damage to the bus involved in the accident. Cross-Defendants assert that on or about March 4, 2022, GEICO tendered $6,602.33, the full amount of the estimated damage, to Metro’s representative. Metro accepted the check “as payment in full for its property damage claim.” (Motion pp. 2, 4-6.)
Metro concedes that the property damage issue has been resolved and does not oppose Cross-Defendants’ motion to strike the claim. Nonetheless, the Court declines to strike this claim because Cross-Defendants’ motion does not assert grounds that “appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437, subd. (a).)
2. The attorneys’ fee request
Cross-Defendants ask the Court to strike Metro’s request for attorneys’ fees because the cross-complaint does not allege the existence of a contract or assert claims for which a statute authorizes fees. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1021 [“Except as attorney’s fees are specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties”].)
Metro argues the Court should not strike the request for attorneys’ fees because it is not facially false, irrelevant, or improper. However, Metro has identified nothing in the cross-complaint that would support an award of attorneys' fees. The Court therefore grants the motion to strike the attorneys’ fees request from Metro’s cross-complaint.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES the motion of Cross-Defendants Carmen Beatriz Rivera and Patricia Sarmiento to strike the fourth cause of action for negligence and property damage from the cross-complaint filed by Cross-Complainant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority dba Metro.
The Court GRANTS the motion of Cross-Defendants Carmen Beatriz Rivera and Patricia Sarmiento to strike the attorneys’ fee request from the cross-complaint filed by Cross-Complainant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority dba Metro.
Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving parties are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.