Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV21078, Date: 2023-12-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV21078    Hearing Date: December 29, 2023    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On August 31, 2023, Lina Gonzales (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Ashley Tisdale (“Defendant”) and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. 

On October 24, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to strike portions of Plaintiff’s complaint.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. 

Trial is set for February 27, 2025. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

A.      Motion to strike 

“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 of 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.)  “In ruling on a motion to strike, courts do not read allegations in isolation.”  (Ibid.) 

B.       Loss of consortium 

A common law claim for loss of consortium has four elements: (1) a valid and lawful marriage between the plaintiff and the person injured at the time of the injury, (2) a tortious injury to plaintiff’s spouse, (3) loss of consortium suffered by plaintiff, and (4) the loss was proximately caused by defendant’s act.  (See LeFiell Manufacturing Co. v. Superior Court (2012) 55 Cal.4th 275, 284-285.) 

DISCUSSION 

A.      The complaint 

The complaint alleges the following: 

As a result of a vehicle collision, Plaintiff suffered wage loss, loss of use of property, hospital and medical expenses, general damage, property damage, loss of earning capacity, and other damage.  “Other damages are unknown at this time which Plaintiffs will prove at the time of trial.  Loss of society, love, protection, companionship, consortium, and other related injuries and damages.” 

B.       Defendant’s motion 

Defendant argues that the Court should strike the allegations concerning “Loss of society, love, protection, companionship, consortium, and other related injuries and damages” because Plaintiff has not pleaded facts establishing a spousal relationship. 

The Court agrees and strikes the quoted language from the complaint. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS the motion to strike filed by Defendant Ashley Tisdale.  The Court strikes the phrase “Loss of society, love, protection, companionship, consortium, and other related injuries and damages” from the complaint. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.