Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 23STCV22211, Date: 2024-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV22211    Hearing Date: March 15, 2024    Dept: 30

CHRISTOPHER JORDAN LUJAN vs MONICA ESCOBAR

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s answer is GRANTED. The Answer filed by Defendant on December 27, 2023 is ordered stricken. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Legal Standard

The court may, upon a 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(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. (Id. § 436(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. (Id. § 436.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Id. § 437.)

Discussion

A Defendant may file a late answer if their default has not yet been taken. (Goddard v. Pollock (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 137, 141.) Here, Defendant’s Answer was filed after default had been entered. Any filings by a defendant in default other than to vacate the default are unauthorized and void. (See Humphrey v Bewley (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 571, 580.) Defendant’s Answer was thus not filed in accordance with the rules of the state of California, and thus is subject to being stricken. As such, the unopposed motion to strike Defendant’s answer is granted.