Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 24STCV18672, Date: 2025-02-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 24STCV18672, Date: 2025-02-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV18672 Hearing Date: February 24, 2025 Dept: 61

SOPHIE BECK, AN INDIVIDUAL vs J.S. EGAN DESIGN, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al.

Tentative

Plaintiff Sophie Beck’s Motion to Strike Portions of Defendants J.S. Egan Designs, Inc., John S. Egan, and Rene Rodriguez’s Amended Verified Answer is CONTINUED to May 21, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. The parties are directed to confer regarding the issues raised in the motion and the potential for stipulating to the filing of an amended answer.

Defendants to provide notice.

Analysis:

I. 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(b)(1)). The notice of motion to strike a portion of a pleading shall quote in full the portions sought to be stricken except where the motion is to strike an entire paragraph, cause of action, count or defense. (California Rules of Court Rule 3.1322.)

The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or form any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437(a)). The court then may strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading and strike out 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.) When the defect which justifies striking a complaint is capable of cure, the court should allow leave to amend. (Perlman v. Municipal Court (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 568, 575.)

Plaintiff Sophie Beck (Plaintiff) seeks to strike certain paragraphs from Defendants J.S. Egan Designs, Inc., John S. Egan, and Rene Rodriguez’s Amended Verified Answer, on the grounds that the paragraphs cited state only as follows:

Plaintiff has failed to provide an underlying factual basis for the allegations made in paragraph 29, and on those grounds, Defendants deny those allegations.

(See Amended Answer ¶¶ 29–33, 36–38, 42, 43, 46–49.)

Plaintiff argues that her filing of a verified complaint triggered Defendants’ obligation, not merely to file a verified answer, but to deny the particular allegations “positively or according to the information and belief of the defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 431.30, subd. (d).) The same statute also provides: “If the defendant has no information or belief upon the subject sufficient to enable him or her to answer an allegation of the complaint, he or she may so state in his or her answer and place his or her denial on that ground.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 431.30, subd. (e).)

Defendants in opposition argue that the present amended answer was their attempt to accommodate Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts, and that no subsequent efforts were made after the amended answer was filed. (Opposition at p. 7.) Defendants further argue that the motion was served only upon a partner at the firm of Defendants’ counsel, not the attorneys and support staff that Defendants had indicated should be served. (Romero Decl. ¶¶ 13–15.) , Defendants claim they only became aware of the motion when Plaintiff filed a belated proof of service on February 10, 2025, indicating that service had occurred on October 23, 2024, which Defendants dispute. (Ibid.)

Parties are required to meet and confer before filing a motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc. § 435.5, subd. (a).) The failure to meet and confer shall not form a basis to grant or deny a motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 435.5, subd. (a)(4).) Here, given the disputes concerning the propriety and timeliness of service, as well as the evident lack of conference regarding the present iteration of the answer, the hearing on the present motion shall be continued to permit the parties time to confer and potentially stipulate to the filing of an amended answer.

The hearing is CONTINUED. The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding the issues identified in the motion and the potential for stipulating to the filing of an amended answer.