Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCV02024, Date: 2024-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CMCV02024    Hearing Date: January 30, 2024    Dept: A

23CMCV02024 Francelia Burton v. Vikram Desai, et al.

Tuesday, January 30, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE.

       The complaint alleges a claim for unlawful detainer arising from Defendant’s alleged failure to pay rent pursuant to a written lease agreement. Defendant, Natasha Desai, moves to strike the complaint, on grounds Defendant was entitled to withhold rent because Plaintiff failed to make needed repairs and breached the warranty of habitability. Plaintiff purportedly retaliated against Defendant by increasing rent, decreasing services, threatening to report Defendant to immigration, and forcefully evicting Defendant.

       Defendant served the Plaintiff with this motion to strike by mail on December 26, 2023. Plaintiff did not file an opposition.  

       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 the motion to strike are limited to matters that appear on the face of the pleading or on any matter which the court shall or may take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)

       As Defendant acknowledges, grounds for a motion to strike must appear from the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter subject to judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437(a).) Defendant’s arguments raise tenant defenses to an unlawful detainer action, all of which are properly raised by affirmative defense in an answer, not in a motion to strike. (Bevill v. Zoura (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 694, 698 [“Thus, where a defendant relies on facts not put in issue by the plaintiff, the defendant must plead such facts as an affirmative defense"].)

       The motion does not raise any purported defects appearing on the face of the complaint that are improper, irrelevant, or not in conformity with California law. Defendant asserts facts that are not contained in the complaint. Whether any of Plaintiff’s asserted misconduct is a valid defense to the eviction action is to be determined by a dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment or at trial by the trier of fact.

       Based on the foregoing, the motion to strike is DENIED. Defendant is ordered to file an answer within five days.