Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: 21STCV28214, Date: 2022-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV28214    Hearing Date: August 3, 2022    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

Defendant Aspire General Insurance Company’s Motion to Strike is DENIED as moot.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND  

This is an action for a refusal to provide coverage under an insurance policy. The Complaint alleges as follows.

On or about March 15, 2019, plaintiff Rads Bundang (“Plaintiff”) and defendant Aspire General Insurance Company (“Defendant”), entered into a written contract for automobile insurance for Plaintiff’s financed vehicle, a 2017 Toyota Yaris (“Yaris”). (Compl., ¶¶ 1, 4, 8.)

The Yaris was stolen on March 15, 2020. (Compl., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff reported the theft to the police and Defendant. (Compl., ¶ 5.) The police found the Yaris and returned it to Plaintiff, but it had been severely damaged in a crash. (Compl., ¶ 5.)

Defendant assigned Plaintiff’s insurance claim to one of its agents, Cornello Guzman. (Compl., ¶ 5.) Guzman accused Plaintiff of fraud and stealing the Yaris even though Guzman had no facts to support such accusations. (Compl., ¶¶ 6, 14.) Nevertheless, Plaintiff cooperated with Defendant’s investigation of his insurance claim by providing Defendant with everything it asked him to provide. (Compl., ¶ 6.) However, Defendant still failed and has refused to pay for Plaintiff’s insurance claim for the loss of the Yaris. (Compl., ¶¶ 6-7.)

Defendant’s conduct, of summarily denying Plaintiff’s insurance claim by accusing him of stealing the Yaris but then requiring him to submit documents and information irrelevant to his claim (e.g., gym membership and cell phone records), constitutes a breach of Defendant’s covenant to perform the terms of the insurance contract in good faith. (Compl., ¶¶ 14-15.) As a result of Defendant’s failure to abide by the terms of the parties’ insurance contract, First Investors Financial Services, Inc. (“First Investors”), filed a lawsuit against Plaintiff, to collect the balance due on the loan it gave to Plaintiff to finance the Yaris.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed the Complaint asserting two causes of action:

1.    Breach of Contract; and

2.    Insurance Bad Faith

On October 12, 2021, Defendant filed a Demurrer with Motion to Strike.

On January 28, 2022, this Court overruled the Demurrer and denied the Motion to Strike.

On February 4, 2022, Defendant filed an Answer.

On July 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer.

On July 21, 2022, Defendant filed an Opposition.

On July 26, 2022, Defendant filed an Amended Verified Answer.

Also on July 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Reply.

DISCUSSION

I.               MOTION TO STRIKE

Plaintiff moves the Court to strike Defendant’s unverified answer.

The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436(a).) The court may also strike 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. (Id., § 436(b).) The grounds for a motion to strike are that the pleading has irrelevant, false or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws. (Id. § 436.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Id. § 437.) 

Here, Plaintiff moves the Court to strike Defendant’s Unverified Answer. Plaintiff notes that, as the Complaint is verified, “the answer shall be verified.” (CCP § 446.) Additionally, “where the Complaint is filed in unlimited jurisdiction, if the complaint is verified, the denial of the allegations shall be made positively or according to the information and belief of the defendant.” (CCP § 431.30(d).)

Defendant filed a Verified and Amended Answer on July 26, 2022, rendering the instant motion moot.

Finally, the Court notes that in its Opposition, Defendant argues Plaintiff failed to meet and confer regarding the instant motion. In Reply, Plaintiff argues a meet and confer is not statutorily required for the instant motion.

Regardless of statutory requirements, the instant motion could have easily been handled with informal communication between Plaintiff’s Counsel and Defendant’s Counsel. The Court encourages both parties to use informal methods of resolution where practicable, as here, to avoid wasting both the Court’s and the parties’ time on unnecessary motion practice.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer is DENIED as moot.

DATED: August 3, 2022                                                            

________________________________ 

Hon. Robert S. Draper 

Judge of the Superior Court