Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 20NWCV00268, Date: 2022-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20NWCV00268    Hearing Date: August 11, 2022    Dept: SEC


CASE NO.:  20NWCV00268

HEARING:  08/11/22






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.