Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 24TRCV00553, Date: 2024-05-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24TRCV00553 Hearing Date: May 9, 2024 Dept: 8
¿¿
HEARING DATE: May 9, 2024
¿¿
CASE NUMBER: 24TRCV00553
¿¿
CASE NAME: FNNP Investments, LLC v. Bryce Egbert, et al
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, FNNP Investments, LLC
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Bryce Egbert or Taisiia Popova
(No Opposition)
TRIAL DATE: May
15, 2024
¿¿
MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to Strike Attachment 5 to Answer
¿
Tentative Rulings: (1) GRANTED.
¿
I. BACKGROUND¿¿
¿¿
A. Factual¿¿
¿
On
February 16, 2024, Plaintiff, FNNP Investments, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed an
Unlawful Detainer Complaint against Defendants, Bryce Egbert, Taisiia Popova,
and DOES 1 through 5. The Complaint is based on the allegations that
Plaintiff is the owner of a single family residential real property at 868 5th
St., Manhattan Beach, CA (“Premises”) where Defendants, Bryce Egbert and
Taisiia Popova were leasing the Premises. Plaintiff alleges that since
September 1, 2023 until the date of filing the current motion, Defendants have
failed to pay any rent to Plaintiff and continue to occupy the premises without
payment of any rent in direct breach of the lease.
The
moving papers assert that Plaintiff has been in periodic settlement communications
with the Defendants, no settlement was ever reached despite its good faith
efforts. Thus, Plaintiff notes that after continued failure to pay rent, and
failure to settle with the Defendants, Plaintiff was forced to initiate this
unlawful detainer action and filed its unlawful detainer complaint on February
16, 2024.
On
March 28, 2024, Bryce Egbert and Taisiia Popova filed an Answer to the Unlawful
Detainer Complaint, and included with the Answer, five attachments. The fifth
attachment, Attachment No. 5 was exchanged between the parties during
settlement discussions and for settlement purposes, and was never signed nor
finalized between the parties but was drafted for settlement purposes.
Now,
Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Strike Portions of Attachment No. 5 from Defendants’
Answer to the Unlawful Detainer Complaint.
B. Procedural¿¿
On April 9, 2024, Plaintiff
filed this Motion to Strike. To date, no opposition has been filed.
II. ANALYSIS¿
¿
A. Motion to Strike
¿ Any party, within the time allowed to respond to
a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any
part thereof. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1).) 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, subd. (a); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d
767, 782 [“Matter in a pleading which is not essential to the claim is
surplusage; probative facts are surplusage and may be stricken out or
disregarded”].) The court may also strike all or any part of any pleading not
drawn or filed in conformity with California law, a court rule, or an order of
the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).) An immaterial or irrelevant
allegation is one that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense;
is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or
defense; or a demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the
allegations of the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10, subd. (b).) The
grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way
of judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)¿¿
B. Discussion
Here,
Plaintiff has brought this motion on the grounds that Attachment No. 5 to
defendants’ verified answer to the unlawful detainer complaint, filed on March
28, 2024, titled “stipulation” and consisting of 35 pages in total, to be
stricken in its entirety from Defendants’ answer as the document was
communicated to Defendants during settlement discussions and was specifically
drafted for settlement purposes and considered a suggested settlement agreement
and is therefore inadmissible pursuant to California Evidence Code section
1152. Evidence Code section 1152(a) states “Evidence that a person has, in
compromise or from humanitarian motives, furnished or offered or promised to
furnish money or any other thing, act, or service to another who has sustained
or will sustain or claims that he or she has sustained or will sustain loss or
damage, as well as any conduct or statements made in negotiation thereof, is
inadmissible to prove his or her liability for the loss or damage or any part
of it.”¿¿
Specifically,
Attachment No. 5 clearly states a section labeled “Stipulation” which includes
headings such as: (1) Addendum; (2) Lease Termination Date; (3) Move Out Date;
(4) Stipulation for Entry of Judgment; (5) Rent through December 31, 2023; (6)
Rent as of January 1, 2024; (7) Incentive for early move-out; (8) Incentive for
Tenancy Beyond February 29, 2024; (9) Holding Over Tenancy beyond April 30,
2024; (10) Security Deposit; and (11) Payments. The above attachment is clearly
an offer to compromise. It is generally
impermissible to include settlement offers or counter-offers as evidence in
this case. (See generally¿Simandle v. Vista de Santa Barbara Associates, LP¿(2009)
178 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1323¿[“It is well established that statements made during
settlement negotiations are not admissible to show liability”]; Armstrong v.
Kline¿(1944) 64 Cal.App.2d 704, 715 [“It is a well–established rule of law
that it is not permissible to show that a party to litigation has offered to
compromise the cause.¿The rule not only excludes the offer to compromise, but
also all negotiations with relation thereto”] (internal quotations and
citations omitted).)
As this Attachment No. 5 is an
inadmissible exhibit, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Attachment
No. 5 from Defendants’ Answer.
III.
CONCLUSION¿¿
¿¿¿
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike all of
Exhibit 5 to Defendants’ Answer is GRANTED.
¿¿¿
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.