Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV03635, Date: 2024-07-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCV03635 Hearing Date: July 30, 2024 Dept: G
Defendant Vincent Reyes Vargas’s Motion to
Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint
Respondent: Plaintiff Jewell Victoria Ramirez
TENTATIVE
RULING
Defendant Vincent Reyes Vargas’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 arising from a motor
vehicle collision. In December 2021, Plaintiff Jewell Victoria Ramirez was
involved in a motor vehicle collision with Defendant Vincent Reyes Vargas on
Interstate 10 in West Covina. At the time of the collision, Ramirez alleges
Reyes Vargas was under the influence of alcohol.
On November 21, 2023, Ramirez filed a complaint against Reyes
Vargas and Does 1-50, alleging a single cause of action for motor vehicle
negligence.
On May 24, 2024, Reyes Vargas filed the
present motion. A hearing on the present motion is set for July 30, 2024, along
with a case management conference.
ANALYSIS
Reyes Vargas moves to strike punitive damages
from Ramirez’s Complaint. Since Reyes Vargas’s counsel did not adequately meet
and confer, the court will CONTINUE
the hearing on Reyes Vargas’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, Reyes Vargas’s counsel
attempted to meet and confer by sending a letter to Ramirez’s counsel that
invited Ramirez’s counsel to participate in a telephonic conference. (Nguyen
Decl., ¶ 3.) Because a letter is not a code-compliant means of meeting and
conferring and Reyes Vargas’s counsel does not appear to have made any
additional attempts to reach out in-person or telephonically, 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
Based on the
foregoing, Reyes Vargas’s motion to strike portions of Ramirez’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.