Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 24NNCV00886, Date: 2024-11-26 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 24NNCV00886    Hearing Date: November 26, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

PAUL PINCKARD, et al.,

                    Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

LANDI PINCKARD PAPAZIAN, et al.,

 

                    Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO.: 24NNCV00886

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS LANDI PINCKARD

PAPAZIAN AND JARED PAPAZIAN’S MOTION TO STRIKE; DEMURRER

 

Dept. 3

8:30 a.m.

November 26, 2024

 

 

 

 

I.      INTRODUCTION

         On April 11, 2024, plaintiffs Paul Pinckard and Theresa Urman (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendants Landi Pinckard Papazian and Jared Papazian (collectively, “Defendants”).

          On June 27, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to strike and a demurrer. Defendants move to strike the Complaint on the grounds that the Complaint fails to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 2.112 and Code of Civil Procedure section 425.10. Defendants also move to strike the Complaint’s allegations of “malice with intent”, a request for $25 million in damages (to the extent they are alleged to be punitive damages), and an allegation on page 3, lines 19-20, which Defendants contend is irrelevant. Defendants also demur to all causes of action alleged in the Complaint (with the exception of Invasion of Privacy) on the grounds that they do not plead facts sufficient to state a cause of action and the causes of action as alleged are uncertain, ambiguous, unintelligible, and impermissibly vague.

          Plaintiffs did not oppose the motion to strike or the demurrer.

II.     LEGAL STANDARDS

          Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1).) 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, subd. (a); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782 [“Matter in a pleading which is not essential to the claim is surplusage; probative facts are surplusage and may be stricken out or disregarded”].) The court may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with California law, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).) An immaterial or irrelevant allegation is one that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense; is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense; or a demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10, subd. (b).) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)

 

III.    DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 2.112, which provides as follows:

Each separately stated cause of action, count, or defense must specifically state:

(1) Its number (e.g., ‘first cause of action’);

(2) Its nature (e.g., ‘for fraud’);

(3) The party asserting it if more than one party is represented on the pleading (e.g., ‘by plaintiff Jones’); and

(4) The party or parties to whom it is directed (e.g., ‘against defendant Smith’).

 

(California Rules of Court, rule 2.112.)

Plaintiffs’ Complaint also fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 425.10(a)(1), which requires a complaint to contain “[a] statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.”

Here, Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not separately identify each cause of action, the party asserting it, or the party/parties to whom it is directed. The Complaint is also not drafted in ordinary and concise language. These failures substantially impair the Court and Defendants’ ability to understand the allegations within the Complaint or even ascertain the particular causes of action which are being asserted.

Accordingly, the Complaint is stricken in its entirety.

As the entire Complaint is stricken, the demurrer is MOOT.

IV.    CONCLUSION

Defendants’ motion to strike is GRANTED with 20 days’ leave to amend. Defendants may obtain dismissal of the action by ex parte application if Plaintiffs fail to file an amended complaint within 20 days. (Code Civ. Proc., § 581, subd. (f)(4).)

Moving party to give notice.

Dated this 26th day of November 2024

 

 

 

 

William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

 

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.