Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 23STLC01902, Date: 2023-10-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STLC01902 Hearing Date: October 27, 2023 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Motion to
Strike Portions of the Answer
Moving Party: Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants
Edgar G. Balvaneda, Julio Balvaneda, Maria G. Balvaneda, Iridian Barajas,
Aubrey Balvaneda, Damien Balvaneda, and Estate of Paula Rodriguez
Resp. Party: Defendants/Cross-Complainants Christopher
Russell, Marc Lazarus, and Russell & Lazarus APC
SUBJECT: Motion to
Strike Portions of the Cross-Complaint
Moving Party: Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants
Edgar G. Balvaneda, Julio Balvaneda, Maria G. Balvaneda, Iridian Barajas,
Aubrey Balvaneda, Damien Balvaneda, and Estate of Paula Rodriguez
Resp. Party: Defendants/Cross-Complainants Christopher
Russell, Marc Lazarus, and Russell & Lazarus APC
The Motions to Strike are DENIED.
BACKGROUND:
On March 23,
2023, Plaintiffs Edgar
G. Balvaneda, Julio Balvaneda, Maria G. Balvaneda, Iridian Barajas, Aubrey
Balvaneda, Damien Balvaneda, and Estate of Paula Rodriguez filed their
Complaint against Defendants Christopher Russell, Marc Lazarus, and Russell
& Lazarus APC. The causes of action arise from a prior legal representation
of Plaintiffs by Defendants.
On May 5,
2023, Defendants filed their Answer to the Complaint.
On May 5,
2023, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Russell & Lazarus APC filed its
Cross-Complaint against Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Julio Balvaneda,
Maria G. Balvaneda, Iridian Barajas, Aubrey Balvaneda, Damien Balvaneda, and
Estate of Paula Rodriguez.
On
May 31, 2023, Plaintiffs filed: (1) Motion to Strike Portions of the Answer;
and (2) Motion to Strike Portions of the Cross-Complaint.
On
August 30, 2023, Defendants filed their Opposition to the Motion to Strike
Portions of the Answer.
On
August 30, 2023, Cross-Complainant filed its Opposition to the Motion to Strike
Portions of the Cross-Complaint.
On
September 5, 2023, Plaintiffs filed: (1) Reply regarding Motion to Strike
Portions of the Answer; and (2) Reply regarding Motion to Strike Portions of
the Cross-Complaint.
ANALYSIS:
For ease of analysis, the
Court concurrently considers the motions.
I.
Legal Standard
Any party, within the time allowed to respond
to a pleading, may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any
part thereof. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1).) The notice of motion to
strike a portion of a pleading shall quote in full the portions sought to be
stricken except where the motion is to strike an entire paragraph, cause of
action, count or defense. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1322.)
The grounds for a motion to strike shall
appear on the face of the challenged pleading or form any matter of which the
court is required to take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437, subd. (a).)
The court then may strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter
inserted in any pleading and 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.)
When the defect which justifies striking a complaint
is capable of cure, the court should allow leave to amend. (Perlman v. Mun.
Ct. (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 568, 575.)
II. Discussion
A. The
Parties’ Arguments
Plaintiffs move the Court to strike any and
all references to the arbitrators’ award and determinations, including
exhibits, from the Answer and the Cross-Complaint. (Motion to Strike Portions
of the Answer, p. 6:7–8; Motion to Strike Portions of the Cross-Complaint, p.
6:14–16.) Plaintiffs argue: (1) that the arbitrators’ award and determinations
are expressly inadmissible under Business & Professions Code section 6204,
subdivision (e); (2) that the arbitrators’ award and determinations are
irrelevant; and (3) that inserting the arbitrators’ award and determinations
into the Cross-Complaint and the Answer is improper and therefore must be
stricken. (Id. at p. 3.)
In their respective Oppositions, Defendants
and Cross-Complainant argue: (1) that the motions to strike are impermissible
because they go beyond the corners of the pleadings; (2) that the affirmative
defenses and breach of contract claim are properly pleaded; and (3) that they
are entitled to plead the recovery of fees. (Opposition to Motion to Strike
Answer, pp. 2–3; Opposition to Motion to Strike Cross-Complaint, pp. 2–3.)
In their Replies, Plaintiffs respond to the
arguments made in the Oppositions.
B. Discussion
Defendants and Cross-Complainant have
alleged, among other things, that there is an arbitration award that is
relevant to this matter. Plaintiffs have not argued that there is anything
improper about this allegation, or of any of the other allegations made, in the
Cross-Complaint and the Answer to the Complaint. Rather, the primary statute
relied upon — Business and Professions Code section 6204 — explicitly
contemplates consideration of and comparison with any existing arbitration
award. (See, for example, Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6204, subd. (d).)
Defendants and Cross-Complainant are entitled
to allege that there is an arbitration award that is relevant to this matter.
It will ultimately be their burden to prove that they are entitled to the
relief they seek via their cause of action and their affirmative defense.
C. Conclusion
The Motions to Strike are DENIED.