Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC04374, Date: 2023-02-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC04374    Hearing Date: February 12, 2023    Dept: 26

Peoples v. Zamudio, et al.

MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER

(CCP §§ 435, 436)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Altis Ryan Peoples’ Motion to Strike the Answer to the First Amended Complaint is GRANTED WITH 20 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND.

ANALYSIS:

On June 30, 2022, Plaintiff Altis Ryan Peoples (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for violation of right to quiet enjoyment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, slander/defamation, and retaliation against Defendant Crystal Zamudio (“Defendant”). The First Amended Complaint was filed on July 26, 2022.

Defendant filed an Answer to the First Amended Complaint on September 9, 2022. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer on October 17, 2022. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

The Motion to Strike is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 436, subdivision (b) on the grounds that Defendant’s Answer was not filed in conformity with the laws of this State. The statute provides that:

The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper:

(a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.

(b) 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, subd. (b).) Motions to strike in courts of limited jurisdiction may only challenge pleadings on the basis that “the damages or relief sought are not supported by the allegations of the complaint.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (d).)

Plaintiff first moves the strike the entire Answer on the grounds that it is not verified as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 446, despite the Complaint being verified. Code of Civil Procedure section 446 specifically states “[w]hen the complaint is verified, the answer shall be verified.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 446, subd. (a).) That the Answer is not verified pertains to whether the allegations are sufficient to support the affirmative defenses. Therefore, the request to strike the entire Answer because it is not verified is granted.

Alternatively, Plaintiff moves to strike the first and second affirmative defenses as insufficiently alleged. Plaintiff argues that neither affirmative defense indicates to what of the six causes of action they apply, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, subdivision (g). The first affirmative defense does allege that it is asserted against the Complaint and each cause of action. (Answer, p. 7:22-24.) The second affirmative defense does not provide the same indication.

The first affirmative defense is for unclean hands, the elements of which are (1) conduct by plaintiff that was unconscionable, bad faith, or inequitable; (2) in connection with the matter in controversy;  and (3) it would be inequitable to provide plaintiff relief. (Fladeboe v. Amer. Isuzu Motors Inc. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 42, 56.) Defendant alleges that “[Plaintiff] has continuously harassed, cursed at and threatened to sue the defendant in retaliation to alleged complaints about his marijuana consumption in his apartment.” (Answer, p. 7:25-28.) It is not clear how Defendant’s threats to sue Plaintiff over her complaints about his marijuana use, which appears to be part of the conflict between the parties, amount to unconscionable, bad faith, or inequitable conduct. Additional allegations are needed to show why the threats of legal action are unconscionable, in bad faith, or inequitable. The request to strike the first affirmative defense is granted with leave to amend.

The second affirmative defense is for equitable estoppel, which is a defense applied to prevent parties from profiting from the detriment they induced others to suffer, or from taking an unfair advantage of others. (See Money Store Investment Corp. v. So. Cal. Bank (2002) 98 Cal. App. 4th 722, 732.) The Answer alleges that Plaintiff is estopped from recovery because the lawsuit is fabricated and exaggerated. (Answer, p. 8:12-13.) Specifically, that the lawsuit is brought in retaliation for Defendant’s complaints to the landlord about Plaintiff’s marijuana use. (Id. at p. 8:2-24.) This defense does not indicate a basis for equitable estoppel. It does not allege conduct by Plaintiff that induced Defendant’s reliance to her detriment. The request to strike the second affirmative defense is also granted with leave to amend.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Altis Ryan Peoples’ Motion to Strike the Answer to the First Amended Complaint is GRANTED WITH 20 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND.

Moving party to give notice.