Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 20NWCV00268, Date: 2022-08-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20NWCV00268 Hearing Date: August 11, 2022 Dept: SEC
PEREZ v. VALDEZ
CASE NO.: 20NWCV00268
HEARING: 08/11/22
JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES
#3
TENTATIVE ORDER
Plaintiff PEDRO PEREZ’s Motion to Strike Defendant PATRICK
VALDEZ’s Motion for Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt and Terminating Sanctions
and Vacate any Order Thereon is DENIED.
Opposing Party to give Notice.
Plaintiff PEDRO PEREZ (“Plaintiff”) moves to strike
Defendant PATRICK VALDEZ’s (“Defendant’) Motion for Order to Show Cause re:
Contempt and Terminating Sanctions filed on March 25, 2022, and any Order
thereon “based on the fact that defendant Valdez failed to serve his Motion… on
Perez his attorney and defendant cross-complainant Henry Aguila.” (Notice
1:24-2:1.)
In Opposition, Defendant argues that the Motion is
procedurally and substantively effective. The Court agrees.
A motion to strike lies either when (1) there is
“irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading”; or (2) to
strike any pleading or part thereof “not drawn or filed in conformity with the
laws of this state, a court rule or order of court.” (CCP §436.) This provision
authorizes “the striking of a pleading
due to improprieties in its form or in the procedures pursuant to which it was
filed.” (Ferraro v. Camarlinghi (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 509, 528.) Consequently,
a Motion to Strike is not the procedurally appropriate tool to “strike” or
“vacate” either the Motion filed on March 25, 2022 or the May 4, 2022 Court
Order.
Moreover, the Proof of Service attached to the Motion filed
on March 25, 2022 indicates that Henry Aguila, Pedro Perez, and Khang Joon were
served by mail on March 25, 2022.
Importantly, Plaintiff does not seek reconsideration of this
Court’s May 4, 2022 Order.