What is a Motion to Strike?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Strike

Recent Rulings on Motion to Strike

76-100 of 10000 results

BAR BAKERS, LLC VS CREATIVE FLAVOR CONCEPTS, INC.

MOTION TO STRIKE: Moot. For reasons of judicial economy, the Court declines to consider the motion to strike at this time. It will be treated as moot in light of the anticipated amendment of the pleading. However, the MPs may renew the motion in relation to the new pleading. If they do, the MP are instructed to keep in mind the following. It is not a proper use of the motion to seek to strike entire causes of action for legal insufficiency.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

ALVARO GARCIA VS BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORP, ET AL.

The grounds for a motion to strike must “appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

FRANCIS HUNG VS. PAOSHENG CHEN

If the motion is timely made, “no act” by the party making such motion, “including filing an answer, demurrer or motion to strike,” shall be deemed a general appearance. (Code Civ. Proc., §418.10, subd. (e)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

NAZLI KARIMIAN VS DISCOVER BANK, ET AL.

CASE NO: 20VECV00663 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE Dept. T 8:30 a.m. October 16, 2020 [TENTATIVE] ORDER: The Special Motion to Strike is GRANTED. Defendants Suttell & Hammer, APC, Esther E. Hyun, Kevin A. Hoang, Patrick J. Layman, Erin E. Patterson, and Jason W. Tang (“Defendants”) move to specially strike the first cause of action (“COA”) for violation of statutory duties (CC §1785.25(a)) alleged in the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Nazli Karimian (“Plaintiff.”)

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

STEVEN DUNNER VS STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Motion To Strike Meet and Confer The Declaration of Michael J. McGuire reflects that the meet and confer requirement set forth in CCP § 435.5 was satisfied. Analysis Based upon the ruling on the demurrer, the motion to strike is MOOT as to paragraphs ¶¶ 48 – 55. As to the paragraphs which remain: u ¶ 21, sentences 2 and 3 re: Kellner’s intention to assign the right to bring an action in Plaintiff’s name.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JUVENAL RANGEL, SR. VS MARIA SANCHEZ

On September 9, 2020, Sanchez filed a demurrer to the FAC and a motion to strike portions thereof. The demurrer and motion to strike were initially scheduled for December 4, 2020, but the Court advanced the hearing date to October 16, 2020 at an ex parte application hearing on September 10, 2020. On October 5, 2020, Rangel filed oppositions to the demurrer and motion to strike. On October 6, 2020, Sanchez filed reply briefs.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DAD, ET AL. V. SCHWARTZ, ET AL.

Hearing on Defendant Schwartz' demurrer and motion to strike continued to 10/23/2020 per 10/6/2020 Order.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

JENNIFER ROBERSON VS MANUELA MARTIN-MORA

If the motion is timely made, “no act” by the party making such motion, “including filing an answer, demurrer or motion to strike,” shall be deemed a general appearance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (e)(1).) Merits – Pursuant to CCP § 418.10(a), the Court may, for good cause, quash a service of summons on the ground that the Court lacks jurisdiction over a specially appearing defendant. The Court will thus address only arguments concerning jurisdiction.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

SHIPPEE'S PROPERTIES, LLC VS YAKOV SHLIMOVICH

On July 28, 2020, this Court denied Shlimovich’s Motion to Strike. On October 9, 2020, Shlimovich filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment. No opposition has been filed. Discussion MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT A motion for summary judgment may be made in an unlawful detainer action at any time after the answer is filed on giving five days' notice. Summary judgment must be granted or denied on the same basis as a motion for summary judgment in any other civil action under CCP § 437c. (Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

ADP, LLC, ET AL. VS ORNELAS & ASSOCIATES, ET AL.

Demurrer; Motion to Strike; Special Motion to Strike; Calendar: Add-On 1 Case No.: 18BBCV00197 Hearing Date: October 16, 2020 Action Filed: December 7, 2018 Trial Date: June 07, 2021 Demurrer; Motion to Strike; MP: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant ADP, LLC RP: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Brilliant Tax & Accounting Services, Inc. Special Motion to Strike MP: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant ADP, LLC RP: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Brilliant Tax & Accounting Services, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BURNEY V. ERB

(1) Defendants’ Demurrer to 1st Amended Complaint. (2) Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s 1st Amended Complaint. TENTATIVE RULING # 10: THESE MATTERS ARE CONTINUED TO 8:30 A.M. ON FRIDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2020 IN DEPARTMENT NINE

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

NASSER SEDAGHAT VS TARZANA HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER

On June 12, 2019, the Court sustained without leave to amend Defendant Kamram Kamrava, M.D.’s demurrer and granted Defendant Kamram Kamrava, M.D.’s motion to strike to the SAC. On June 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal with prejudice as to Defendant Kamran Kamrava, M.D. On March 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement of the entire case.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RICHARD PECH VS AFSHIN MOGHAVEM, ET AL.

Doniger and Scott and Scott Alan Burroughs’ Special Motion to Strike On August 13, 2020, defendants Stephen N. Doniger and Scott Alan Burroughs filed a special motion to strike the complaint as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. On September 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Doniger and Burroughs’s anti-SLAPP motion. Plaintiff’s September 21, 2020 opposition again improperly included numerous attorney-client privileged communications between the Moghavem Defendants and Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY VS NATIVE CREATIONS INC. AND, ET AL.

As such the motion to strike is granted pursuant to CCP § 436(b). Conclusion Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to strike is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this Order. DATED: October 16, 2020 ________________________________ Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

JOSE RIZO VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

Nissan’s motion to strike punitive damages is granted. Conclusion Nissan’s demurrer to the third cause of action is sustained without leave to amend. Nissan’s motion to strike punitive damages is granted.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

245 SPALDING PARTNERS, L.P. VS EVEREST INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

Because the demurrer has been sustained as to all causes of action, the motion to strike is MOOT. DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC, PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPEAR BY LA COURT CONNECT.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SUSAN HARMAN VS GORDON H SASAKI, ET AL.

DEFENDANT SASAKI’S MOTION TO STRIKE Defendant Gordon H. Sasaki, M.D.’s Motion to Strike Portions of the Second Amended Complaint is DENIED. Defendant Sasaki seeks to strike allegations regarding punitive damages, specifically paragraph 74 and 75 in the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress cause of action and paragraph 95 in the Intentional Misrepresentation cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

JIANGSU GUOTAI INTERNATIONAL GROUP GUOMAO CO., LTD, A CHINESE BUSINESS ENTITY VS JR GROUP, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Motion to Strike Meet and Confer The Declaration of Attorney Walter Whitman Moore reflects that the meet and confer requirement was satisfied. (CCP § 435.5.) Analysis The motion to strike is GRANTED without leave to amend as to ¶¶ 13(C), 13(D), and Exhibit 1 to the Complaint. Defendant is correct that these allegations and this exhibit are “irrelevant” matter. (CCP § 436(a).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ALAN GROSMAN ET. AL. VS. MASAKO T. KASLOFF

Under Rule 3.1700(b)(1), “Any notice of motion to strike or to tax costs must be served and filed 15 days after service of the cost memorandum. If the cost memorandum was served by mail, the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. If the cost memorandum was served electronically, the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(a)(4).”

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

TANIA OLVERA, ET AL. VS RAY FISH, ET AL.

Defendants filed a motion to strike on February 4, 2020. On May 18, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a “Notice of Errata re: First Amended Complaint Filed Without Leave of Court.” The action was transferred from the PI court to Department 49 on January 10, 2020. On August 21, 2020, the court granted Defendants motion to strike the first amended complaint and granted Plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint for motor vehicle and general negligence only.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

WILLIAM WANG VS FENGZHONG WANG

SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO CCP § 425.16 (ANTI-SLAPP MOTION) Date: 10/16/20 (10:00 AM) Case: William Wang v. Fengzhong Wang (19STCV11315) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Fengzhong Wang’s Special Motion to Strike Pursuant to CCP § 425.16 is DENIED. The Court employs a two-prong process in ruling on a CCP section 425.16 motion to strike. “First, the court decides whether the defendant has made a threshold showing that the challenged cause of action is one arising from protected activity.”

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

GENE ZILINSKAS, ET AL. VS STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, ET AL.

MOVING PARTIES: Defendants State Farm General Insurance Company and Rowena Ho RESPONDING PARTIES: Plaintiffs Gene Zilinskas and Dagmar Zilinskas Defendants State Farm General Insurance Company and Rowena Ho’s Motion to Strike Portions of the First Amended Complaint The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with the motion to strike.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LYNNEL DAVIS, ET AL. VS MONROVIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

The motion to strike was granted in part, and the claims for attorney’s fees were ordered stricken as to all but the sixth cause of action, as to which the motion to strike was denied. ANALYSIS: Procedural It does not appear that plaintiffs have been appropriately served with notice of the demurrer, which could explain why there is no opposition.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

SHERMAN C. WHITE VS GEICO INSURANCE COMPANY

The Court will thus grant the instant motion to quash. --- Standard of Review – Motion to Strike – The proper procedure to attack false allegations in a pleading is a motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc. § 436, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

KAREN BAGDOYAN ET AL VS ELVIR BABAKHANLOO ET AL

Because this action could have been dismissed on demurrer and a reasonably skilled attorney should have embarked upon that more efficient and logical course of action, the Court finds that attorney’s fees defendants expended on preparing and filing the motion to strike, propounding of discovery, and litigating motions concerning discovery were entirely unnecessary.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.