Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23AHCV02915, Date: 2024-06-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV02915    Hearing Date: June 24, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: June 24, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Motion to Strike Portions of the First Amended Complaint

Moving Party: Defendant Diversified Utility Services, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiff Southern California Edison Company

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE IS DENIED.

DEFENDANT 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.

BACKGROUND

On February 29, 2024, Plaintiff Southern California Edison Company filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendant Diversified Utility Services, Inc., asserting causes of action for (1) express indemnity; (2) equitable indemnity; (3) contribution; and (4) declaratory relief. Plaintiff seeks indemnity from Defendant for an underlying personal injury settlement. Decedent Eric Wickstrom was electrocuted while working for DUSI, who contracts with Edison for electrical work. Decedent’s family sued Edison in a related case and settled. Edison now seeks indemnity from DUSI for the settlement.

ANALYSIS

“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.)

Defendant DUSI seeks to strike the Plaintiff’s prayers for indemnification of “any” and “all” of the costs Plaintiff paid to decedent’s family in the underlying suit.

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff cannot state claims for equitable indemnity against Defendant because the worker’s compensation exclusivity rule bars indemnity, absent an express contract, for an employee’s personal injury while working. As stated in opposition, Plaintiff does not seek equitable indemnity against Defendant, only express indemnity under the parties’ Master Services Agreement. The claims for equitable indemnity are alleged against Does.

Defendant also argues that Plaintiff is not entitled to indemnification for Plaintiff’s own share of liability. Plaintiff alleges that it has no share of liability; in this motion the Court must treat the allegations in the complaint as true.

Defendant’s motion to strike is DENIED.