Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV17289, Date: 2024-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV17289    Hearing Date: January 17, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: January 17, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Motion to Strike

Moving Party: Defendant Neotech Products, LLC

Responding Party: Plaintiff Gloria Jurado

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

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.

“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.)

This is a PAGA action. Defendant moves to strike allegations of Labor Code violations that occurred during Plaintiff’s employment on the ground that they are barred by the one-year statute of limitations. (CCP § 340(a); Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 824, 839.)

Plaintiff alleges she was employed by Defendant from February 15, 2015 to August 31, 2020. (Compl. 16.) Plaintiff filed the notice letter with the LWDA on January 13, 2023 and filed this suit on July 24, 2023. Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated the Labor Code by (1) failing to pay all meal period wages and rest break wages, (2) failing to properly calculate and pay all minimum and overtime wages, (3) failing to provide accurate wage statements, (4) failing to pay all wages due and owing during employment and upon termination of employment, (5) failing to reimburse all necessary business expenses, and (6) failing to timely provide employee records upon request.

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts the claim for failure to provide employee records is not barred because Plaintiff requested the records on December 10, 2022. In reply, Defendant emphasizes that it is not seeking to strike that allegation. Plaintiff has not shown the other allegations are timely.

Defendant’s motion to strike is GRANTED.