Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 23STLC00181, Date: 2024-05-30 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse until the morning of the motion hearing.

The e-mail address is SSCdept26@lacourt.org

The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.

If there are no appearances by either side and no submission on the Court's tentative ruling, the matter will be placed OFF CALENDAR.

Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.

Law Offices of Stephen L. Cawelti, APC v. Casentini, IV, et al.

MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER

Plaintiff Law Offices of Stephen L. Cawelti, APC’s Motion to Strike Answer is DENIED.

On January 10, 2023, Plaintiff Law Offices of Stephen L. Cawelti (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of retainer agreement against Defendant Michael J. Casentini, IV (“Defendant”). Defendant filed an answer to the Complaint on November 19, 2023.

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Strike Answer on March 19, 2024. No opposition has been filed to date.

The Motion to Strike is procedurally defective. First, the Motion is not accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a) [“Before filing a motion to strike pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the objections to be raised in the motion to strike.”].)

Second, a motion to strike in a court of limited jurisdiction may only be brought on the grounds that “the damages or relief sought are not supported by the allegations of the complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (d).) The instant Motion to Strike is based on the grounds that Defendant’s answer does not contain a general or specific denial and does not contain a statement of any new matter constituting a defense. (Motion, pp. 1-3.) This is not a permissible basis to strike the answer in the limited jurisdiction court.

Plaintiff Law Offices of Stephen L. Cawelti, APC’s Motion to Strike Answer is DENIED.