Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 23STCV15499, Date: 2023-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV15499    Hearing Date: December 7, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

BACKGROUND

On July 3, 2023, Dylan Scott Perry (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against The Walt Disney Company (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant used the animated television series “American Dad!” to send him coded death threats. (Complaint, 2:14-16.) On November 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed their Motion to Strike[1] (“Motion”). No opposition nor reply brief was filed.

DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer –

“Before filing a motion to strike pursuant to this chapter, 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.” (CCP § 435.5(a).) Plaintiff makes no showing that the requirements of CCP § 435.5(a) have been met. However, per CCP § 435.5(a)(4), “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.” Therefore, the Court will turn its attention to the merits of the Motion.  

Legal Standard –

The court may, upon motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (CCP § 436, subd. (a).) The court may also strike 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. (CCP § 436, subd. (b).) The grounds for a motion to strike are that the pleading has irrelevant, false, or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws. (CCP § 436.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (CCP § 437.)

A motion to strike any pleading must be filed “within the time allowed to respond to a pleading”—e.g., 30 days after service of the complaint or cross-complaint unless extended by court order or stipulation. [CCP § 435(b)(1)]. This does not affect the court's power to strike sua sponte. Courts are specifically authorized to strike a pleading upon a motion or at any time in the court's discretion. (CCP § 436)

Analysis –

The Motion will be denied on both procedural and substantive grounds. Procedurally, Plaintiff frames their Motion as a “Pre-Objection to Opponents Demurrer with Parts of Record Visibly Stricken”. First, Defendant’s Demurrer was filed prior to this Motion, and second, the Court is unaware of any permissible preemptive motions. Moreover, the Motion falls outside the timing constraints articulated in CRC 3.1322(b) and CCP § 435(b)(1). Substantively, the Motion fails to identify what filing is the target of the Motion. Additionally, the Motion fails to specify a passage, page, or paragraph the movant is intending to strike as demanded by CRC 3.1322(a). Finally, the Motion is unintelligible and fails to articulate a cognizable ground on which any of Defendant’s filings should be struck. Therefore, the Motion is denied. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 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 7th day of December, 2023