Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 23STCP01472, Date: 2024-01-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCP01472 Hearing Date: January 29, 2024 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Demurrer to
Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s Answer to the Complaint
Moving Party: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant
Jila Babazadeh-Shraga
Resp. Party: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Gohar Babazadeh
SUBJECT: Motion to Strike Portions of
Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s Amended Answer to Complaint
Moving Party: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant
Jila Babazadeh-Shraga
Resp. Party: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Gohar Babazadeh
The Demurrer to Amended Answer is OVERRULED.
The Motion to Strike Amended Answer is
DENIED.
On May 3, 2023, Plaintiff Jila Babazadeh-Shraga filed her
Complaint against Defendants Gohar Babazadeh; Elizabeth Babazadeh; Shalom
Brothers Enterprises, LP; Hayem’s Daughters, Inc.; and All Persons Unknown
Claiming any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, Estate, Lien or Interest in the
Property Described in the Complaint Adverse to Plaintiff’s Title, or Any Cloud
on Plaintiff’s Title. This case arises from the ongoing wind-up and termination
of a partnership as a result of the death of a partner.
On May 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed her Notice of Pendency
of Action.
On June 22, 2023, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Gohar
Babazadeh filed: (1) Answer to the Complaint; and (2) Cross-Complaint against
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Jila Babazadeh-Shraga.
On June 27, 2023, Defendant Elizabeth Babazadeh filed two
Answers to the Complaint, one for each capacity in which she was sued.
On July 18, 2023, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Gohar
Babazadeh filed her Amended Answer to Complaint.
On July 28, 2023, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant filed her
Demurrer to Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s Answer to the Complaint (“Demurrer to
Amended Answer”).
On August 2, 2023, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant filed her
Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s Amended Answer to
Complaint (“Motion to Strike Amended Answer”).
(Pursuant to amended notices filed on October 10, 2023,
these are the filings scheduled to be heard on January 29, 2024. A separate
demurrer to the Cross-Complaint, filed on December 1, 2023, is currently
scheduled to be heard on February 13, 2024.)
On January 17, 2024,
Defendant/Cross-Complainant filed: (1) Opposition to Demurrer to Amended
Answer; and (2) Opposition to Motion to Strike Amended Answer.
On January 22, 2024,
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant filed her Combined Replies.
ANALYSIS:
The demurrer and the motion to strike are an
example of an all-too-common practice in the Superior Court: that of counsel
routinely filing a demurrer or motion to strike that could not possibly dispose
of the case nor advance their party’s interests. This usually happens when
defense counsel is demurring to a complaint, which, while perfectly
intelligible, contains some technical deficiencies.
More and more — as is the case here — the
Court is now seeing plaintiffs demurring to an answer or filing a motion to
strike an answer.
All Counsel know what is happening:
Defendant/Cross-Complainant filed an answer, and without any thought to the
specific case at issue, cut-and-pasted numerous “affirmative defenses.” Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant
in turn cut-and-pasted a demurrer or motion for judgment on the pleadings,
arguing that the answer has not stated the facts underlying each affirmative
defense, or that the answer is somehow defective or improper.
Nothing would be gained were the Court to
grant this motion. As Counsel are fully aware, the Court would be required to
give the non-moving party leave to amend. All that would be achieved is the
expenditure of at least another dozen hours of attorneys’ time. In addition to increasing
the attorney’s fees on both sides, this would result in preventing the case
from being at issue for another three months. This case was filed on May 3,
2023. It has still not been set for
trial. Further delay does not serve the
interests of justice.
“The court must, in every stage of an action,
disregard any error, improper ruling, instruction, or defect, in the pleadings
or proceedings which, in the opinion of said court, does not affect the
substantial rights of the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 475.)
CONCLUSION:
The Demurrer to Amended Answer is
OVERRULED.
The Motion to Strike Amended Answer is
DENIED.