Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case 19STCV10591 2023-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 19STCV10591, Date: 2023-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV10591 Hearing Date: January 26, 2023 Dept: G

Defendants El Monte Union High School District and Angelita Gonzales Hernandez’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Master Complaint

Respondent: Plaintiffs Jane C.A. Doe, Jane D.B. Doe, Jane E.M. Doe, Jane G.A. Doe, and Jane M.V. Doe

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants El Monte Union High School District and Angelita Gonzales Hernandez’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Master Complaint is CONTINUED TO March 14, 2023 at 8:30 a.m., Dept. G (Pomona).

Defendants’ counsel is also ordered to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the motion to strike and to file a detailed supplemental declaration describing such meet and confer efforts at least ten (10) court days before the next scheduled hearing, on or before February 28, 2023.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from the sexual abuse of high school students by school staff. Defendant Daniel Rios (Rios) was a track coach and substitute teacher employed by Defendant El Monte Union High School District (EMUHSD) at Arroyo High School. Defendant Angelita Gonzales Hernandez (Gonzales) was employed by EMUHSD as the principal of Arroyo High School. Plaintiffs Jane C.A. Doe, Jane D.B. Doe, Jane E.M. Doe, Jane G.A. Doe, and Jane M.V. Doe (collectively, Plaintiffs) were minor students attending Arroyo High School. Between 2013 and 2017, Rios subjected the Plaintiffs to sexual abuse through various acts of inappropriate touching and groping. Rios was then arrested and pled no contest to one count of annoying and molesting a child under 18 years of age in 2018.

On March 27, 2019, Plaintiffs (not including Jane M.V. Doe) filed a complaint against EMUHSD, Gonzales, Rios, and Does 1-20, alleging the following causes of action: (1) negligence (against EMUHSD, Gonzales, and Does 1-20); (2) sexual harassment pursuant to Civil Code section 51.9 (against EMUHSD, Gonzales, and Does 1-20); (3) sexual assault (against Rios); and (4) sexual battery (against Rios). On July 11, EMUHSD and Gonzales filed a demurrer with a motion to strike that was sustained in part and granted in part on September 20. On November 16, 2020, the court granted leave for Plaintiffs (not including Jane M.V. Doe) to file a First Amended Complaint (FAC) against the same defendants alleging the same causes of action. On December 11, the parties stipulated to dismiss the second cause of action for sexual harassment without prejudice. On April 19, 2021, the court granted EMUHSD and Gonzales’ motion to strike in part as to treble damages in the FAC.

On October 14, 2020, Plaintiff Jane M.V. Doe filed a complaint against EMUHSD, Rios, and Does 1-20, alleging the following causes of action: (1) negligence (against EMUHSD and Does 1-20); (2) sexual harassment pursuant to Civil Code section 51.9 (against EMUHSD and Does 1-20); (3) sexual assault (against Rios); and (4) sexual battery (against Rios). On January 26, 2021, Plaintiff Jane M.V. Doe’s action was consolidated with the action brought by the other Plaintiffs. On May 13, 2022, the court denied EMUHSD and Gonzales’ motion for summary judgment or adjudication on both cases.

On November 29, 2022, Plaintiffs were granted leave to file a Master Complaint. On December 29, EMUHSD and Gonzales (collectively, Defendants) filed the present motion. Prior to filing on December 6, Defendants’ counsel “met and conferred” with Plaintiffs’ counsel. (Cheung Decl., ¶ 5.)

LEGAL STANDARD

Upon a party’s motion or the court’s own motion, the court may strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a).) The court may also “[s]trike out 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).) “The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437, subd. (a).)

An immaterial or irrelevant allegation includes “(1) An allegation that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense,” “(2) An allegation that is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense,” or “(3) A demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint or cross-complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10.)

ANALYSIS

Defendants seek to strike treble damages and attorney fees from Plaintiffs’ complaint. Plaintiffs respond that Defendant’s attempt to meet and confer was insufficient. After reviewing the parties’ declarations and for the reasons below, the court agrees with Plaintiffs.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5, subdivision (a), prior to filing a motion to strike, “the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the objections to be raised in the motion to strike.” This section further provides that “the moving party shall identify all of the specific allegations that it believes are subject to being stricken and identify with legal support the basis of the deficiencies.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a)(1).) However, “[a] determination by the court that the meet and confer process was insufficient shall not be grounds to grant or deny the motion to strike.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a)(4).)

As an initial matter, the court notes the declaration of Defendants’ counsel is deficient as it does not identify the means by which parties met and conferred. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a)(3)(A).) While the declaration of Plaintiffs’ counsel establishes counsel met telephonically, the declaration also states Defendants’ counsel did not bring up the issue of treble damages and only inquired if Plaintiffs’ counsel was amenable to a stipulation on attorney fees. (Boubion Decl., ¶ 6-8.)

In reply, Defendants’ counsel submitted another declaration admitting counsel’s memory is vague on the discussion of treble damages and does not recall if a stipulation was discussed. (Cheung Reply Decl., ¶ 3.) Counsel also admits the conversion was brief. (Cheung Reply Decl., ¶ 3.) Thus, the court finds the meet and confer efforts of Defendants’ counsel insufficient and will continue the hearing to give parties additional time to adequately meet and confer in-person or telephonically.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiffs’ Master Complaint is CONTINUED TO March 14, 2023, 8:30 a.m., Dept. G (Pomona).

Defendants’ counsel is also ordered to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the motion to strike and to file a detailed supplemental declaration describing such meet and confer efforts at least (10) court days before the next scheduled hearing, on or before February 28, 2023.