Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 23STCV10170, Date: 2024-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV10170    Hearing Date: April 26, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiff Christopher Castro (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on May 5, 2023 against Defendant Dongalen Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Interstate Plastics (“Defendant”). The Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) disability discrimination, (2) failure to provide reasonable accommodation, (3) failure to engage in the interactive process, (4) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (5) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation, (6) whistleblower retaliation,

(7) violation of California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) rights, (8) “CFRA rights retaliation,”

(9) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and (10) negligent hiring, retention, and supervision.  

Defendant now moves to strike portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff opposes.

Discussion

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Defendant’s counsel’s declaration filed in support of the motion indicates, inter alia, that “[o]n June 27, 2023, counsel for Defendant sent a meet and confer email requesting that Plaintiff withdraw his plea for punitive damages against Defendant on the grounds that the Complaint failed to state specific facts sufficient to support a conclusion that Defendant acted with oppression, fraud or malice. The email also conveyed Defendant’s intention to file a Motion to Strike the plea for punitive damages should Plaintiff refuse to withdraw the plea voluntarily.” (Chavez Decl., ¶ 3.)

The Court notes that Defendant’s counsel’s declaration does not demonstrate that the parties met and conferred in person, by telephone, or by video conference. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5, subdivision (a), “[b]efore filing a motion to strike pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference 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.” (Emphasis added.) Such meeting and conferring must be done in good faith with an effort to try to resolve the issues subject to the motion to strike.

In light of the foregoing, the hearing on Defendant’s motion to strike is continued to _______________, 2024 at 10 a.m. in Dept. 50. 

Defendant is¿ordered to meet¿and confer¿with Plaintiff within 10 days of the date of this order.¿If the parties are unable to resolve the pleading issues¿or if the parties are otherwise unable to meet and confer in good faith, Defendant is to¿thereafter¿file and serve¿a declaration setting forth the efforts to meet and confer in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5, subdivision (a)(3) within 15 days of this order.¿

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this order. 

DATED:  April 26, 2024                                ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court