Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22CHCV00734, Date: 2023-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00734    Hearing Date: March 21, 2023    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49 

Date: 3-21-23 (c/f 10-24-22 and 11-4-22)

Case # 22CHCV00734  

Trial Date: Not Set

STRIKE

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Ashley Anderson, pro per

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants, Nasch Properties, et al.

RELIEF REQUESTED 

Motion to Strike the Demurrer and Motion to Strike of Defendants Nasch Properties and Charly Taylor

SUMMARY OF ACTION 

Plaintiffs Michael Perry and Ashley Anderson reside in an apartment building owned and/or managed by Defendant Nasch Properties, LLC. The assigned property manager on the premises is identified as defendant Charly Taylor.

On May 7, 2022, Anderson alleges a co-tenant in the building, defendant Stanley Nathanson, committed a sexual assault and attempted within the apartment building laundry room common area. Plaintiffs submitted a complaint with property manager Taylor, but allege defendant landlords refused to conduct any independent investigation and/or seek eviction of Nathanson. Instead, on August 17, 2022, Plaintiffs were served with a three day notice to quit. Plaintiffs additionally allege the interruption of “essential services,” such as hot water.

On September 7, 2022, Plaintiffs, in pro per, filed their complaint for “stay of unlawful detainer, restitution, civil penalties, preliminary and permanent injunction, and other equitable relief Business & Professions Code [section] 17200.” The 18 individual causes of action are listed as Sexual Harassment in Violation of California Civil Code section 51.9; Sexual Assault and Harassment … in Violation of California Civil Code section 51.9; Color, Race and Sex-Based Discrimination Based on Status as Sexual Assault Victim; Violation of RALPH Act California Civil Code section 51.7; Interference with Exercise of Civil Rights in Violation of Bane Act, California Civil Code section 52.1, Retaliation; Discrimination prohibited by the 14^th Amendment; Breach of Duty to Protect Tenants from Foreseeable Crimes; Strict Liability under Special Relationship Doctrine; Gender Violence; Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; Negligence and Failure to Disclose Tenants Criminal Propensities; Negligent Refusal of Landlord to Investigate and Screen Prospective Tenants; Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Unfair Competition under Business and Professions Code section 17200; Defamation; Breach of Contract; and, Claim for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.

On October 24, 2022, the court denied the ex parte application to stay the pending unlawful detainer case in Department 44. The court also denied the ex parte order for a restraining order.

On January 26, 2023, the court granted the motion to dismiss Michel Perry from the lawsuit, due to the failure to obtain leave to file the subject complaint as a designated vexatious litigant. The court also sustained the demurrer of Nasch Properties, LLC with 30 days leave to amend.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on the order dismissing Perry on February 8, 2023.

The court electronic filing system shows no amended complaint on file. Any amended complaint due on March 2, 2023.

RULING: Denied.

Plaintiff Ashlee Anderson, pro per, moves to strike the demurrer and motion to strike brought by Nasch Properties and Charly Taylor. Plaintiff filed two separate motions on October 24, 2022 and November 4, 2022. The court considers the motions together in this single ruling given the common relief sought and redundancy of the motions.

The motions are based on the challenge to defendants’ right to bring the demurrer and motion to strike given either the previously presumed entry of defaults against the parties, or the wrongful rejection of the defaults by the clerk’s office. Defendants in opposition challenge the propriety of the motion, and contend the motion was not properly served. Plaintiff filed a 141 page reply, the address of which continues to list dismissed party Michael Perry, arguing the filed demurrer and motion to strike were untimely following service,

Plaintiff correctly states that an entry of default precludes any further appearance unless and until the default is vacated. The court docket, however, shows NO entered defaults entered against any party. The court declines to consider any challenge the propriety of the rejection of the default by the clerk’s office. The court further declines to consider any and all existing and new arguments presented in the reply regarding the timing of service and the filing of the demurrer and motion to strike.

Said arguments can be addressed in any opposition to the demurrer. The court reminds defendant of the points and authority page limit, should Plaintiff chose to again reargue the merits of this, as well as address the substance of the demurrer and motion strike. The court otherwise finds no basis for the motion. Defendants were entitled to bring their demurrer and motion to strike as a responsive pleading to the complaint for purposes of ruling on the subject motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, et seq.) The motion is therefore DENIED.

The court also notes that continued excessive filings and law and motion can be used as support for a motion to deem Plaintiff Anderson a vexatious litigant.

Motions to deem admissions admitted filed by Anderson, and motion for attorney fees against former defendant Perry, set for April 18, 2023, and May 5, 2023, respectively.

Defendant to give notice to all parties.