Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 23STCV04121, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV04121    Hearing Date: January 30, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On December 21, 2023, the Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the claims of the California Plaintiffs: Alejandra Montano, Aaron Alaniz, Carlos Romero, Marcos Montano, Justin Willis, Gabriel Venegas, Aaron Castillo, Steve Santos, Meghan Caldwell, Keyshia Littleton, Trenton Lee Earnhardt, and OM Jagg.  The Court determined that, as a matter of law, Plaintiffs could not state claims for intentional interference with contractual relations and unfair competition.  Ther Court therefore denied leave to amend and ordered the in-state Defendants dismissed without prejudice.

The Court also set a briefing schedule and Order to Show Cause for dismissal of the remaining action (maintained by the non-California Plaintiffs) based on Code of Civil Procedure section 436, subdivision (b).

The parties timely filed opening briefs.  Defendant timely filed its reply brief.  Plaintiffs did not file a reply brief.

The non-California Plaintiffs argue only that “[t]]he Court’s OSC and proposed motion to strike exceed the proper bounds of a motion to strike.”  (Plaintiffs’ Brief at p. 3.)  They contend that “a motion to strike pursuant to Section 436(b) is not a proper vehicle to extend the effect of T-Mobile’s Demurrer.”  (Id. at p. 4.)

“The court may, . . .  at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper . . . Strike 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).)  A complaint that fails to state facts constituting a cause of action is “not drawn in conformity with the laws of this state and [is] thus properly subject to the court’s own motion to strike under section 436, subdivision (b).”  (Lodi v. Lodi (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 628, 631.)

Plaintiffs Tommy Campbell, Ana Linayo Del Sol, Kevin Salazar, Matthew Wolpert, Steven Marcangelo, Velinda Valentin, Scott Brady, James Cavanagh, Antonio Herrera, Justin Bright, Luis Quintana, Saxon Butcher, and Alexander Boucher do not reside in California.  (Complaint ¶¶ 1-10, 12-14.)  However, their claims are indistinguishable from the now-dismissed California Plaintiffs’ claims.  (See generally Complaint.)

The Court’s reasoning in its December 21, 2023 order—finding that the causes of action do not state a claim—applies equally to the non-California Plaintiffs.  Because the non-California Plaintiffs do not state a claim, the Court will strike their pleading under section 436, subdivision (b).

The Complaint filed on February 23, 2023 is STRICKEN.

Plaintiffs Tommy Campbell, Ana Linayo Del Sol, Kevin Salazar, Matthew Wolpert, Steven Marcangelo, Velinda Valentin, Scott Brady, James Cavanagh, Antonio Herrera, Justin Bright, Luis Quintana, Saxon Butcher, and Alexander Boucher are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

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 30th day of January 2024