Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV01957, Date: 2024-05-30 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on a tentative ruling by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 23PSCV01957    Hearing Date: May 30, 2024    Dept: G

Plaintiffs Samuel Mariz, Rosa Lopez, Nicolas Mariz, Samuel Mariz Jr., and Alma Lopez’s Motion to Strike the Answer in Its Entirety, or Alternatively, Portions of the Answer to the Complaint

Respondent: Defendants Salvador Carrillo and Veronica Cordova

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs Samuel Mariz, Rosa Lopez, Nicolas Mariz, Samuel Mariz Jr., and Alma Lopez’s Motion to Strike the Answer in Its Entirety, or Alternatively, Portions of the Answer to the Complaint is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

On June 29, 2023, Plaintiffs Samuel Mariz, Rosa Lopez, Nicolas Mariz, Samuel Mariz Jr., and Alma Lopez (collectively, Mariz-Lopez Plaintiffs) filed a complaint against Defendants Salvador Carrillo, Veronica Cordova, 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, (8) negligence per se, (9) violation of the Civil Code section 1750 et seq., (10) violation of Civil Code section 1947.12, and (11) intentional influence to vacate.

On February 21, 2024, Carrillo and Cordova filed a cross-complaint against the Mariz-Lopez Plaintiffs alleging the following causes of action: (1) indemnification, (2) apportionment of fault, and (3) property damages.

On March 18, 2024, the Mariz-Lopez Plaintiffs filed the present motion. Prior to filing, the Mariz-Lopez Plaintiffs’ counsel attempted to meet and confer telephonically with Carrillo and Cordova’s counsel. (Partiyeli Decl., ¶ 3.)

A hearing on the motion to strike is set for May 30, 2024, along with a case management conference and OSC Re: Default as to the Cross-Defendants.

ANALYSIS

The Mariz-Lopez Plaintiffs move to strike Carrillo and Cordova’s Answer to their Complaint on the grounds that it includes an improper general denial. But on March 1, 2024, which the Court notes is prior to the filing of the present motion, Carrillo and Cordova filed a Second Amended Verified Answer to the Complaint pursuant to a stipulation between the parties. The present motion appears to be based on the original or first amended answer and does not reference the second amended answer. Furthermore, the second amended answer does not appear to include a general denial nor does the Mariz-Lopez Plaintiffs’ motion provide a citation to such.

Accordingly, the Mariz-Lopez Plaintiffs’ motion is summarily DENIED.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Mariz-Lopez Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Carrillo and Cordova’s answer is DENIED.