Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV01425, Date: 2023-10-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCV01425 Hearing Date: October 3, 2023 Dept: G
Plaintiffs Basthy Almanza, Isidro Hernandez, and
Michelle Almanza’s Motion to Strike the Answer In Its Entirety, or,
Alternatively, Portions of Answer to Complaint
Respondent: NO OPPOSITION
TENTATIVE
RULING
Plaintiffs Basthy Almanza, Isidro Hernandez, and
Michelle Almanza’s Motion to Strike the Answer In Its Entirety is GRANTED with ten
(10) days leave to amend.
BACKGROUND
This is a breach of the warranty of
habitability action. From September 2016 to March 2023, Plaintiffs Basthy Almanza,
Isidro Hernandez, and Michelle Almanza rented an apartment in West Covina from
Defendants Harris Bros and Covina Rollingwood Apartments (Covina Rollingwood). Subsequently,
Plaintiffs allege they were subjected to substandard conditions including
cockroach and bedbug infestations, deteriorated and worn walls and ceilings,
faulty and leaking pipes, unsanitary and worn flooring, mold contamination,
dysfunctional plumbing systems, a lack of air conditioning, improper
weatherproofing, and inadequate security.
On May 10, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a complaint
against Harris Bros, Covina Rollingwood, and Does 1-100, alleging the following
causes of action: (1) violation of Civil Code section 1942.4, (2) tortious
breach of the warranty of habitability, (3) private nuisance, (4) violation of
Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., (5) negligence, (6) breach
of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, (7) intentional infliction of emotional
distress (IIED), (8) negligence per se, and (9) violation of the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act (CLRA).
On August 1, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the
present motion. A hearing on the motion is set for October 3 with a case
management conference and OSC Re: Failure to File Proof of Service set for
October 16.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs move to strike Covina
Rollingwood’s answer on the grounds that it was not properly verified. For the
following reasons, the court GRANTS
Plaintiffs’ motion.
Legal Standard
Motion to Strike
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).)
Answer
According to the rules governing pleadings,
an answer must be verified if it is in response to a verified complaint. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 446, subd. (a).) Furthermore, unless the action is a limited civil
action for $25,000 or less, an answer to a verified complaint cannot rely on a
general denial and must respond to each allegation. (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.30,
subd. (d).)
Discussion
In this case, while Plaintiffs filed a
verified Complaint, Covina Rollingwood’s answer lacks any verification and
inappropriately includes a general denial in its first paragraph. Accordingly,
the court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion. To the extent Plaintiffs requested
an entry of default, the court DENIES
this request as Covina Rollingwood
is entitled to the opportunity to amend their answer.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Covina Rollingwood’s answer is GRANTED with ten (10) days leave to amend.