On 01/17/2018 a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury case was filed by ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY against SEALY'S PLUMBING AND HEATING in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.
*******1246
01/17/2018
Pending - Other Pending
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
ELAINE LU
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY AKA JAMES ROBERTSON
SEALY'S PLUMBING AND HEATING
9/11/2018: Notice Of Rejection - Request For Dismissal
10/18/2018: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel - Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel
10/18/2018: Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil - Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil
12/11/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel)
12/14/2018: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Motion to be Relieved as Counsel
1/24/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel)
1/24/2019: Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil
2/21/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service
2/26/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Appearance Case Review Re: failure to file proof of servi...)
2/26/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
5/23/2019: Motion for Order (name extension) - Motion for Order NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING VERIFIED RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $660.0
7/2/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery"))
7/12/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice NOTICE OF TRIAL
7/12/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice NOTICE OF CONTINUED HEARING FOR MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES
4/2/2018: Answer
1/17/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet
1/17/2018: Complaint
1/17/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service
Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial
Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery")
DocketNotice NOTICE OF CONTINUED HEARING FOR MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; Filed by: Allstate Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Sealy's Plumbing and Heating (Defendant)
DocketNotice NOTICE OF TRIAL; Filed by: Allstate Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Sealy's Plumbing and Heating (Defendant)
DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") scheduled for 08/27/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/01/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery"))
DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") scheduled for 07/02/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Held - Continued was rescheduled to 08/27/2019 08:30 AM
DocketOn the Court's own motion, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 07/17/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 10/01/2019 08:30 AM
DocketAnswer; Filed by: Sealy's Plumbing and Heating (Defendant)
DocketCase reassigned to Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 77
DocketUpdated -- Summons on Complaint: Name Extension changed from on Complaint to on Complaint
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Elaine Lu in Department 77 Stanley Mosk Courthouse
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 07/17/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77
DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 01/20/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77
DocketComplaint; Filed by: Allstate Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Sealy's Plumbing and Heating (Defendant)
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Allstate Insurance Company (Plaintiff)
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk
Case Number: 18STLC01246 Hearing Date: February 13, 2020 Dept: 26
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Sealy’s Plumbing and Heating, et al.
MOTION TO STRIKE
(CCP §§ 92, 435, 436)
TENATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Allstate Insurance Company’s Motion to Strike the Answer is DENIED.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff Allstate Insurance Company a/s/o James Robertson (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for automobile subrogation against Defendant Sealy’s Plumbing and Heating (“Defendant”) on January 17, 2018. Defendant filed an Answer on April 2, 2018. On January 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint seeking to add Morrington Randy Sealy to the action as Doe Defendant 1. However, the Amendment was never approved by the Court.
On January 24, 2019, the Court granted the motion of Defendant’s counsel to withdraw from representation.
Following the Court’s order granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s responses to written discovery, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Strike the Answer on September 30, 2019.
When the matter came for trial on October 1, 2019, Plaintiff requested that the trial date be continued to be concurrent with the February 13, 2020 hearing on the instant Motion to Strike.
To date, Defendant has not filed an opposition to the Motion to Strike.
Legal Standard
The Motion to Strike is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 435 and 436, which authorize a party’s motion to strike matter from an opposing party’s pleading if it is irrelevant, false, or improper. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 435; 436, subd. (a).) Motions to strike may also target pleadings or parts of pleadings that are not filed or drawn in conformity with applicable laws, rules or orders. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).) A motion to strike is used to address defects that appear on the face of a pleading or from judicially noticed matter but that are not grounds for a demurrer. (Pierson v. Sharp Memorial Hospital (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 340, 342; see also City & County of San Francisco v. Strahlendorf (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1911, 1913 (motion may not be based on a party's declaration or factual representations made by counsel in the motion papers).)
However, motions to strike in limited jurisdiction courts may only challenge pleadings on the basis that “the damages or relief sought are not supported by the allegations of the [pleading].” (Code Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (d).) This may fall under matters that are “improper” or “not filed or drawn in conformity with applicable laws, rules or orders.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 436, subd. (a)-(b).)
Finally, Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5 requires that “[b]efore 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 whether an agreement can be reached that resolves the objections to be raised in the motion to strike.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a).)
Discussion
As an initial matter, the Motion to Strike is procedurally defective. It is not brought within the time to respond to an Answer, which is 10 days. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.40, subd. (b); 435, subd., (b)(1).) It is also not accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5. (See Motion, Ford Decl.)
On the substantive merits, the Motion is brought on the basis that the Court has discretion to strike the Answer due to Defendant’s failure to appear at the hearings on Plaintiff’s discovery motions (held on July 2, 2019 and August 27, 2019) and failure to file papers explaining the non-appearance.
There is no basis under the aforementioned statutes to strike a pleading for a party’s failure to appear for hearings regarding discovery motions, or any other motion. Plaintiff offers no explanation as to how Defendant’s failure to appear demonstrates that the Answer is false, irrelevant, improper, or not filed or drawn in conformity with applicable laws, rules or orders. These are the only proper basis to strike a pleading under Code of Civil Procedure section 436. Nor does Plaintiff explain how Defendant’s failure to appear demonstrates that “the damages or relief sought are not supported by the allegations of the [Answer].” The Court has no discretion to strike a pleading beyond those grounds set forth in law and Plaintiff has shown no such authority for the relief requested. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.)
Plaintiff Allstate Insurance Company a/s/o James Robertson’s Motion to Strike the Answer is DENIED.
Court clerk to give notice.