Motion-Secondary: ROMERO V MUIR Print

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                NANCY I. SKOVHOLT, STATE BAR NO. 126356

     MICHELLE LEE, STATE BAR NO. 270! 23
     ENSBERG LAW GROUP
     1609 WEST GARVEY AVENUE NORTH
     WEST COVENA, CA 91790
     (626) 81 3—3744
     (626) 81 3-3886-FAX


     ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF,
     CARMEN ROMERO

                         SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                                 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
                       CIVIL DIVISION OF THE   SAN BERNARDINO DISTRECT
                                  SAN BERNARDINO JUSTICE CENTER

     CARMEN ROMERO, an individuai              )       Case No.1 CIVD82017858
                                               )
                   Plaintiffs,                 )       MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND
                                               )       AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION T0
           vs.                                 )       STRIKE; DECLARATION 0F NANCY J.
                                               )       SKOVHOLT
     KATHLEEN MUIR, an individual, and         )
     DOES 1 T0 10, inclusive,                  )
                                                       Date: January 29, 2021
                                               )       Time: 9:00 am.            $516   £7375”   F4993“
                   Defendants.                 )       Dept:   $30                flag; {53C
39                                                                                 2, $63
                                               g
20


21




24


25


25


27

23



                                                   1


       MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION T0 MOTION T0
                         STRIKE;    DECLARATION OF NANCY J. SKOVHOLT
                 As     preliminazy matters:

                  I.    Defendant’s Motion to Stn'ke should be summarily denied in whalc due to Defendant’s

                        failure to    meet and confer         in   advance   ovf'filing the        Motion regarding the chaflmges                 ta be

     4                  asserted herein, as required           by Code 0f Civil Procedure                 section 435.5. (Declaration of Nancy

     5                  J.   Skovholt, attached, 11 2-3 and Ex.              1.)


     s           2.     Piaintiff objects tn consideration             of the Case Summary and any other documents from

     7                  Defendant’s pending divorce action pursuant to Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice: on

     3                  the ground that these are irrelevant             and immaterial           to   whether   all   or part of Plaintiff’s

    9                   Compiaint in         this action is subject to       a motion to        strike.


 10                                                                                I.


 n                                    STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO MOTIONS T0 STRIKE
               “The court may, upon a motion made pursuant                          to Section 435, or at        any time     in.   its   discretioa,
 ‘2
               and upon terms it deems proper:
 i3            (a) Strike out        any   irrelevant, faISe, or     improper matter inserted in any pleading.

 14            (b) Strike out        an or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of
               this state, a court rule, or     an order of the comt"
 :5
         (Code Civ, Pros. § 436.)                                                                 .




15
               “(3)    The grounds         for   a motion   to strike shall   appear on the face of the challerzged pleading or
17            fiom any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.
              (b) Where the motion. lo strike is based on matter of which the court may take judiciaf notice
t   8
              pursuant to Section 452 0r 453 of the Evidence Code, such matter shal! be specified in the
19            notice of motion, or in the supporting points and authorities, except as the court                                    may
              otherwise permit.”
20
         (Code Civ. Proc.       § 437.)
2!
                                                                               n
22
            THE MOTION T0 STRIKE IS WHOLLY IMPROPER WITH RESPECT T0 THE THIRD
23
                                                    AND FOURTH CAUSES 0F ACTION.
24
                Motions to       strike are       used to challenge defects             in   pleadings that are n0: chalIengeable by
25
         demurrer.     (Wen    8.:   Brown, CAL. CIV. PR0.             BEFORE TRIAL, Rutter Group (2020),                           11    7:155.)
26
         However, Dafendant merely reiteratm                  in her   Motion       to Strike the      same gmunds        asserted via her
27
         concurrentIy-filed Demurrer although none ofthe grounds asserted are of the few types that                                           may be-
28
         advanced via either demurrer or motion                to strike. (Ibid)


                                                                          2
            MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
                                     STRIKE;        DECLARATION OF NANCY J. SKOVHOLT