Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 23STCV01866, Date: 2025-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV01866    Hearing Date: February 6, 2025    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On January 30, 2023, Plaintiff Priscilla Gonzalez filed this action.  On June 27, 2024, Plaintiff substituted Defendant Tawnie Blade for Doe 3 and Defendant Richard Blade for Doe 4.

On December 11, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to strike.  Defendants’ request for judicial notice is denied as unnecessary because the exhibits are already part of this case’s record.

The court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subds. (a)-(b).)

Defendants argue that the Doe amendments should be stricken as improper because “Plaintiff is anything but ignorant of the facts.”  (Motion at p. 4.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 474 permits a plaintiff who is ignorant of the name of a defendant to name a Doe in a complaint, and “when his true name is discovered, the pleading or proceeding must be amended accordingly.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 474.)  To do so, the plaintiff must have actually been ignorant of the defendant’s identity when he or she filed the complaint.  (Optical Surplus, Inc. v. Superior Court (1991) 228 Cal. App. 3d 776, 783-782.)  According to Defendants, on September 19, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel memorialized that they were aware the franchise was sold to “Blaze Enterprises.”  (Motion at p. 1.)  Defendants cite an email exhibit from Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Quash and for a Protective Order.  (Id. at pp. 1-2.)  This exhibit is unauthenticated hearsay with respect to its use in this motion.  Moreover, Plaintiff provides authenticated evidence that she first learned Defendants’ identities through discovery produced on May 31, 2024—less than a month before the Doe amendments.  (Opposition at p. 2; Demirtchian Decl. ¶ 4.)

Defendants also argue that Plaintiff has not served Defendants.  (Motion at p. 4.)  Plaintiff filed proofs of service on November 4, 2024, showing service of the summons and complaint on Defendants via substituted service on October 28 and 29, 2024.  A motion to strike is not the proper method to challenge the validity of service of process.  Defendants have now made a general appearance by filing this motion and by filing the January 13, 2025 ex parte application, and they may no longer challenge personal jurisdiction.  (See, e.g., Greener v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1028, 1037 [“Notwithstanding a ‘special appearance’ designation on a motion to quash, if the movant seeks relief on any basis other than lack of personal jurisdiction, he or she makes a general appearance.”].)

The motion to strike is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 6th day of January 2025