Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 23STCV21455, Date: 2023-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV21455    Hearing Date: December 6, 2023    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   December 6, 2023                                          

CASE NAME:           Anthony Sabillon, et al. v. Marcelo Arturo Garcia, et al.

CASE NO.:                23STCV21455

MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT

MOVING PARTY:  Defendant Marco Antonio Garcia

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiffs Anthony Sabillon, Justin Kemp, and Jaime Hernandez

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1.       An Order striking the entire Complaint;

2.       An Order dismissing Moving Defendant from the Complaint.

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.      Motion to Strike is DENIED.

2.      Moving Defendant to file an Answer within 10 days of notice of this ruling.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On September 6, 2023, Plaintiffs Anthony Sabillon, Justin Kemp, and Jaime Hernandez (Plaintiffs) filed a Complaint against Defendants Marcelo Arturo Garcia, Enrique Garcia aka Rick Garcia, and Marco Antonio Garcia (Defendants) with five causes of action for: (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of implied warranty of habitability, (3) negligence, (4) nuisance, and (5) violation of Civil Code Section 1942.4.

According to the Complaint, Plaintiffs were tenants at real property located at 8468 Evergreen Avenue, South Gate, Los Angeles, California 90280 (the Property). Defendants owned, managed, and/or maintained the Property. Plaintiffs allege various problems with the Property including pest infestations, electrical defects, pollution, lack of weather proofing, damaged flooring, inoperable smoke alarms, lack of sanitary plumbing, mold, leaks, deteriorated window sills, excessive trash and debris in common areas, and building code and safety code violations. Plaintiffs assert Defendants were cited by city officials related to these violations.

On September 29, 2023, Defendants Marcelo Arturo Garcia and Enrique Garcia filed an Answer.

On October 30, 2023, Defendant Marco Antonio Garcia (Moving Defendant) filed the instant motion to strike and request for dismissal. On November 21, 2021, Plaintiffs timely filed an opposition. Reply briefs were due on or before November 29, 2023. As of December 1, 2023, no reply brief was filed.

LEGAL STANDARD:

Motion to Strike 

The court may, upon a 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436(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. (Id., § 436(b).) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Id.¿§¿437.)¿“When the defect which justifies striking a complaint is capable of cure, the court should allow leave to amend.” (Vaccaro v. Kaiman¿(1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 761, 768.)¿ 

Meet and Confer 

A moving party is required to meet and confer prior to filing a motion to strike and to submit a declaration demonstrated they satisfied this requirement. (CCP § 435.5.) Here, the Declaration of Marco Antonio Garcia submitted in support of the motion does not indicate that he met and conferred prior to filing the motion. Accordingly, the meet and confer requirement is not met. Still, failure to meet and confer is not grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer, or grant or deny a motion to strike.[1] (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.41, subd. (a)(4); 435.5 subd. (a)(4).)

ANALYSIS:

Moving Defendant contends he is not involved with this case as he did not have any contact with Plaintiffs, does not manage the Property, and did not sign as a witness the lease agreements attached to the Complaint. Moving Defendant also challenge various allegations of the Complaint as false. Plaintiffs argue that Moving Defendant’s motion to strike is procedurally improper as it seeks summary adjudication in his favor.

The court agrees with Plaintiffs. Moving Defendant seeks an evidentiary finding from the court, which is not appropriate at the pleading stage.

Accordingly, the court DENIES the motion to strike and request for dismissal.

CONCLUSION:

            For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

1.      Motion to Strike is DENIED.

2.      Moving Defendant to file an Answer within 10 days of notice of this ruling.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             December 6, 2023                   __________________________________                                                                                                                Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court