Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCV31183, Date: 2023-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV31183    Hearing Date: March 28, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 28, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Motion to Strike Answer

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Hui Shun Jin and He Chun Zhao

Responding Party: None

T/R:     PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE IS DENIED.

PLAINTIFFS TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers. No opposition has been received.

            “Any party, within the time allowed to response to a pleading, may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part" of that pleading. (CCP § 435(b)(1).) “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 asserted 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." (CCP § 436.)

            Plaintiffs move to strike Defendant Inki Yu’s answer, seeking terminating sanctions against Defendant. Plaintiffs assert Defendant has failed to appear at any hearings in this action or file any documents. Plaintiffs also represent that Defendant has not responded to their discovery requests.

In determining whether sanctions should be imposed, courts consider the totality of the circumstances, including the “conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.”  (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal. App. 4th 1225, 1246.)   “The penalty should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.”  (Wilson v. Jefferson (1985) 163 Cal. App. 3d 952, 959.)

            The Court finds terminating sanctions inappropriate at this stage. Plaintiffs have not made any motions to compel discovery and Defendant has not disobeyed any discovery orders. Plaintiffs do not provide evidence showing when, what and how discovery was propounded on Defendant or when responses were due. This is insufficient to justify striking Defendant’s answer.

            Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.