Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: LAM01K18855, Date: 2023-03-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: LAM01K18855    Hearing Date: March 30, 2023    Dept: 26

 Beck v. Summer, et al.

MOTION TO STRIKE
(CCP §§ 435, 436)

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendants Warren Summer and Karin Winkler’s Motion to Strike Memorandum of Costs after Judgment is DENIED.

 

 

ANALYSIS:

 

On September 24, 2001, Plaintiff Thomas Beck, Esq. (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of retainer agreement against Defendants Warren Summer and Karin Winkler (“Defendants”). Judgment was entered on January 8, 2003. Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment (Partial) was filed on January 5, 2006. Other documents, including Applications and Orders for Appearance and Examination were subsequently filed. The judgment was renewed on January 8, 2013. Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment was denied on February 22, 2023. (Minute Order, 02/22/23.) Plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Costs after Judgment on January 27, 2023. 

 

Defendants filed the instant Motion to Strike Memorandum of Costs after Judgment on February 16, 2023. Plaintiff filed an opposition on March 17, 2023.

 

Discussion

 

The Motion to Strike is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 436, subdivision (b) on the grounds that the Memorandum of Costs after Judgment 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).) Specifically, Defendants argue that the proof of service of the Memorandum of Costs after Judgment shows it was served by Plaintiff, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a.

 

First, a motion to strike may only be made as to a pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b)(1) [“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 . . . .”].) A pleading is defined as “a demurrer, answer, complaint, or cross-complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a)(2).) Also, 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).) Third, a motion to strike must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.3.) Defense counsel does not indicate any meet and confer effort prior to bringing this Motion. (Motion, Smith Decl.) Finally, the Motion cites no authority for the proposition that an improper proof of service is grounds to strike the entire document. Therefore, the Motion to Strike is denied.

 

Conclusion

 

Defendants Warren Summer and Karin Winkler’s Motion to Strike Memorandum of Costs after Judgment is DENIED.

 

Court clerk to give notice.