Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22CMCV00738, Date: 2023-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CMCV00738    Hearing Date: October 17, 2023    Dept: A

22CMCV00738 Christopher S. Bennett v. NDEX West, LLC, Michael Barrett, James Frappier

Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 8:30 a.m.

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

I.        BACKGROUND

      The complaint alleges that Plaintiff owned real property in Hawthorne, which Defendants foreclosed upon, leaving a surplus of $82,918.81. Defendants refused to allow Plaintiff’s claim for the surplus funds. Plaintiff alleges claims for conversion and theft.

      On August 8, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication and denied Plaintiff’s oral request to continue the hearing and for leave to amend the complaint. On August 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) without leave of court, deleting the claim for conversion and adding claims for embezzlement of real property, fraud, statutes of fraud.

II.      ARGUMENTS

      Defendants argue that the FAC was improperly without leave of court. Plaintiff did not make a motion to amend the pleading. The parties have met and conferred without resolution.

      Plaintiff argues that Defendants have sidestepped the issue of whether Defendants committed fraud and other white-collar crimes alleged. All the allegations are relevant to each claim. Defendants will not suffer any prejudice.

      Defendants did not file a reply brief by October 10, 2023 (five court days before the hearing). (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005 (b).)  Defendants, however, did file a reply brief on October 11, 2023, one day late. 

 

III.    DISCUSSION

      The court may, upon motion or at any time in its discretion and upon terms it deems proper: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of the pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436 subd (a)-(b). Grounds for a motion to strike are limited to matters that appear on the face of the complaint or on any matter of which the court shall or may take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437).

      Plaintiff may amend his pleading once without leave of court before the answer, demurrer, or a motion to strike is filed or by stipulation of the parties. (Code Civ. Proc., § 472 (a).) Defendants filed their answer on February 16, 2023. Therefore, Plaintiff is required to make a motion for an order permitting leave to amend and the motion must comply with Cal Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473 (a) (1).) Plaintiff filed the FAC without order of the court, and therefore, it is not filed in conformity with California law.

IV.    CONCLUSION

      Based on the foregoing, the Defendants’ Motion to Strike is GRANTED. The Court strikes the FAC filed on August 15, 2023.