Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 22VECV01165, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22VECV01165    Hearing Date: May 18, 2023    Dept: W

ROBIN LA RUE AND SABINE LA RUE. v. SHAHE BOYADJIAN

Motion TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Date of Hearing:   May 18, 2023                     Trial Date:       Not set yet

Department:         W                                       Case No.:         22VECV01165

Moving Party:             Defendant Shahe Boyadjian

Responding Party:       None

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of a landlord-tenant dispute as between plaintiffs/tenants, Robin La Due and Sabine La Due (“Plaintiffs” or “La Dues”) and defendant/landlord, Shahe Boyadjian (“Defendant”). Sabine La Due is Robin La Due’s elderly mother. Plaintiffs have sued Boyadjian for alleged issues that arose out of their tenancy.

The parties have a history of litigation between them that began prior to plaintiffs filing the instant action. In January 2022, Boyadjian filed a small claims action against Robin La Due to recover unpaid rent. Judgment was ultimately entered in favor of Boyadjian, against La Due. (Request for Judicial Notice, Exhibit “A”.) On June 21, 2022, Boyadjian filed an unlawful detainer action against Robin La Due stemming from his longstanding unjustified failure to pay rent at the subject property, in direct violation of the lease agreement. That matter was also fully litigated and resulted in another judgment in favor of Boyadjian, against La Due. (Request for Judicial Notice, Exhibit “B”.) Following those two actions by Boyadjian, the La Dues subsequently brought the instant civil action on August 15, 2022

On November 16, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. On January 13, 2023, they filed a second amended complaint. On April 6, 2023, defendant moved to strike portions of their second amended complaint. Plaintiff has not opposed.

[Tentative] Ruling

Defendant’s Motion to Strike is DENIED.

ANALYSIS

Meet and Confer

Based on Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5, subdivision(a), the parties’ meet and confer efforts do not appear adequate. (Decl. Tijam ¶¶ 5-13.) However, this is not grounds to grant or deny the motion to strike. (Code Civ. Pro., § 435.5, subd. (a)(4).)

Timeliness

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. (Code Civ. Pro., § 435, subd. (b)(1).) Further, a defendant must respond to an amended complaint within 30 days after service, or such other time as the court may direct. (Code Civ. Pro., § 471.5, subd. (a).)

Here, the plaintiffs filed and served their second amended complaint on January 13, 2023. However, the defendant did not move to strike until April 6, 2023, more than 30 days after service of the second amended complaint. Further, this exceeds the 30-day automatic extension due to the parties’ inability to meet and confer. (Code Civ. Pro., § 435, subd. (a)(2).)

Request for Judicial Notice

The Court grants Defendant’s requests for judicial notice of the Notice of Entry of Judgment, case no. 21VESC02511 and Unlawful Detainer Judgment, case no. 22VEUD00858. (Evid. Code §, 452(c).)

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion to Strike is DENIED.