LE THI NGUYEN, AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF LINH THI HUGENS VS CAMERON PROPERTIES, INC.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STLC05083    Hearing Date: February 08, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Tue., February 9, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Nguyen v. Cameron Properties, Inc. COMPL. FILED: 06-17-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STLC05083 DISC. C/O: 11-15-21

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Le Thi Nguyen

RESP. PARTY: Defendant Cameron Properties, Inc.

MOTION TO STRIKE

(CCP § 435)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Le Thi Nguyen’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses is DENIED.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: Filed on September 25, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: None filed as of February 5, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On June 17, 2020, Plaintiff Le Thi Nguyen (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint for conversion and trespass to chattels against Defendant Cameron Properties, Inc. (“Defendant”). Defendant filed an Answer on July 22, 2020.

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Strike Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses (the “Motion”) on August 3, 2020. Defendant filed an Opposition on September 25, 2020. No reply brief was filed.

1. Legal Standard

California law authorizes 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 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).) 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 complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 92, subd. (d).) The Code of Civil Procedure also authorizes the Court to act on its own initiative to strike matters, empowering the Court to enter orders striking matter “at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 436.)

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).)

1. Discussion

Plaintiff seeks to strike the twenty-two affirmative defenses asserted in Defendant’s Answer on the basis that they are mere legal conclusions and are devoid of any factual basis. (Mot., p. 4:3-15.) However, as noted above, 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 complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 92, subd. (d).)

As Plaintiff does not seek to strike requests for relief or damages, the Motion is DENIED.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Le Thi Nguyen’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Affirmative Answers is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.