Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: 21STCV40074, Date: 2023-03-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV40074    Hearing Date: March 8, 2023    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

Plaintiff Jamon Brown’s Motion to Strike the Answer is GRANTED.

Defendant Eleanor Avenue Properties LLC is granted thirty days leave to amend to file a Verified First Amended Answer.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND   

This is an uninhabitability action. The Complaint alleges as follows.

Plaintiff Jamon Brown (“Plaintiff”) rented residential property located at 1025 North Serrano Ave., Los Angeles CA (the “Subject Property”). (Compl. ¶ 1.) Defendant Eleanor Avenue Properties LLC (“Defendant”) was the landlord of the Subject Property. (Compl. ¶ 7.) While Plaintiff was a tenant there, the Subject Property suffered a number of habitability defects including pest infestation, mold contamination, defective plumbing systems, inoperable electrical systems, inadequate ventilation and accumulations of filth. (Compl. ¶ 18.) Despite numerous complaints, Defendant failed to remedy these issues. (Compl. ¶ 27.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On November 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed the Complaint asserting seven causes of action:

1.    Violation of California Civil Code § 1942.4;

2.    Tortious Breach of the Warranty of Habitability;

3.    Private Nuisance;

4.    Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.;

5.    Negligence;

6.    Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; and,

7.    Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

On June 24, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to Strike.

On October 6, 2022, the Court denied Defendant’s Motion to Strike.

On November 2, 2022, Defendant filed an Answer.

On November 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Strike the Answer.

On February 23, 2023, Defendant filed an Opposition.

As of March 6, 2023, no Reply has been filed. Any Reply was due by March 1, 2023.

DISCUSSION

I.                MOTION TO STRIKE

Plaintiff moves to strike Defendant’s Unverified Answer to the Complaint.

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 contends that Defendant’s Answer was unverified; Defendant’s answer needed to be verified under Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d).

A defendant's answer to a verified complaint must contain a specific denial to each allegation of the complaint or a denial according to the defendant's information and belief. (CCP § 431.30(d); Fish v. Redington (1866) 31 Cal. 185, 194.) Thus, if a complaint is verified, the plaintiff can compel the defendant to deny specifically each separate allegation. (San Francisco Gas Co. v San Francisco (1858) 9 Cal. 453, 466.)

In Opposition, Defendant concedes that the Answer was improperly unverified. However, Defendant notes that leave to amend is proper when an Answer is accidentally unverified.[1] (See Perlman v. Municipal Court (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 568, 575.)

The Court finds that the defect in the Answer can be easily remedied, and that allowing Defendant leave to amend the Answer will cause no prejudice to Plaintiff.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the Answer is GRANTED. Defendant is granted thirty days leave to file a First Amended Verified Complaint.

DATED: March 8, 2023          

____________________________ 

Hon. Robert S. Draper

Judge of the Superior Court