Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV05602, Date: 2022-09-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV05602    Hearing Date: September 28, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: September 28, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Strike Portions of First Amended Complaint

Moving Party: Defendants Catherine McBroom and Austin McBroom

Responding Party: Plaintiff TBL Cosmetics, Inc.

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

            DEFENDANTS 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, opposition, and reply.

“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.) The Court's authority to strike improper pleadings includes the power to strike those pleadings that are "not filed in conformity with its prior ruling." (Janis v. California State Lottery Com (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 824, 829.) 

Defendants move to strike two allegations from the FAC:

Paragraph 33; “all technology, passwords, and logins of 1212 Gateway that had been improperly taken over by Ms. McBroom were returned to TBL…; and

Paragraph 35: “TBL was hopeful that the impact of Ms. McBroom’s takeover could be mitigated, and the Company could get back on track for success.”

Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s references to Catherine’s possession of 1212 Gateway’s passwords and Catherine’s “takeover” violate a confidential settlement agreement executed by the parties in a different action. Defendants say the settlement bars claims relating to misappropriating passwords and “attempting a coup.”

The Court is unpersuaded that these allegations must be stricken. References to settled claims are not irrelevant as a matter of law. And the Court cannot determine if the references breach any confidentiality provision of the settlement. The motion to strike is DENIED.