Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV02185, Date: 2024-08-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCV02185 Hearing Date: August 1, 2024 Dept: G
Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint
Respondent: NO OPPOSITION
TENTATIVE
RULING
Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint is CONTINUED to
a date to be determined at the hearing set in Department G (Pomona).
Defendant’s
counsel is also ordered meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the
motion to strike and file a supplemental declaration describing such meet and
confer efforts at least nine (9) court days before the next scheduled hearing
on the present motion.
BACKGROUND
This is a personal injury action. In March 2023, Plaintiff Mercedes
Consuelo Leones was riding a light rail train that was operated by Defendant Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA). At or near a
station in Irwindale, Leones alleges the train suddenly and violently jolted
without warning which caused Leones to fall and suffer significant injuries.
On July 7, 2023, Leones filed a complaint against LACMTA, John
Doe, and Does 1-10, alleging a single cause of action for negligence.
On May 10, 2024, LACMTA filed the present motion.
A hearing on the present motion is set for August 1, 2024, along with a case
management conference and OSC Re: Dismissal for Plaintiff’s Failure to Appear.
ANALYSIS
LACMTA moves to strike portions of Leones’s
cause of action for negligence and Leones’s request for prejudgment interest. Because
LACMTA’s counsel did not adequately meet and confer, the court will CONTINUE the hearing on LACMTA’s motion to strike.
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).)
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).)
Discussion
In this case, LACMTA’s counsel attempted to
meet and confer by sending a letter to Leones’s counsel. (Glazer Decl., ¶ 2.) While
LACMTA’s counsel vaguely describes subsequent meet and confer communications,
counsel fails to specify if the communications were conducted in a
code-compliant manner over telephone, videoconference, or in-person. (Glazer
Decl., ¶ 3-5.) Thus, the court finds these meet and confer efforts insufficient
and will continue the hearing to give parties additional time to adequately
meet and confer in-person, over the telephone, or by videoconference.
CONCLUSION