On June 07, 2021 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Donald And Tedi Anderson,
Fritzsche, Deanna R,
Fritzsche, Gary E,
James & Mary Hackett,
Kevin M Charnesky And Jerri G Charnesky,
Miller, Stephen E,
Snow-Line Preservation Association, Llc,
Steven Glass And Carol Glass,,
and
California Department Of Alcoholic Beverage Control,
County Of San Bernardino,
Does 1-100,
Hudson, Michael,
San Bernardino County,
Snow-Line Orchard, Llc,
The Hudson Living Trust,
for Business Tort/Unfair Business Practice Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
. «iiwucaWA»
a
ANDREW C. HARRIS (SBN: 208706)
acharris@grsm.com
NICHOLAS M. KREBs (SBN: 306996) F: i LE D
nkrebs@grsm.com SUPERiOR
Eggfilmmo
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP cgmgggggéfim
”
‘J
Wairam
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071 [jQV 2 3 ZUZT
Telephone: (213) 576-5000
Facsimile: (213) 680-4470
BY
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Petitioner,
SNOW-LINE PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION, LLC
\OOOVON
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10 SNOW-LINE PRESERVATION CASE NO.: CIVSB21 17580
LLP
ASSOCIATION, LLC, a California Limited
11 Liability Company, Assigned to Hon.Wi1fred J. Schneider, Jr.
Dept. S-32 For All Purposes
Floor 12 Plaintiff and
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
MANSUKHANI,
Petitioner,
52nd
9007] 13 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY’S
VS. MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS
Street,
CA 14 OF THE FIRST AMENDED
SNOW-LINE ORCHARD, LLC, a PETITION
SCULLY
Fifth
Angeles,
15 California Limited Liability Company; THE
HUDSON LIVING TRUST, a California
West Los
16 MICHAEL HUDSON, an individual;
trust; Date: December 8, 2021
REES
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, a VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Time: 9:00 a.m.
633
17 Municipal Corporation; CALIFORNIA Dept: S-32
DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC
GORDON
18 BEVERAGE CONTROL, a Governmental Complaint filed: June 7, 2021
Agency; and DOES through 100,
1 TSC: December 20, 2021
19 inclusive, Trial Date: Not yet assigned
20
Defendants,
21 Respondents,
and Real
22 Parties In
Interest.
23
Plaintiff and Petitioner SNOW-LINE PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION (“SLPA”)
24
submits the following Opposition to Defendant SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY’S
25
(“COUNTY”) Motion t0 Strike.
26
I. INTRODUCTION
27
Except for a brief citation to California Code osz'vil Procedure § 436(a), the
28
-1-
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE
FIRST AMENDED PETITION
COUNTY’S Motion t0 Strike is a verbatim cut and paste of the points and authorities filed in
support of its demurrer, even t0 the point of including the inexplicable reference to “pleadings
directed at public entities, such as the County 0f Los Angeles, and its employees, Deputies
UI-PUJN
Spurrier and Rosa.” (See, Motion at page 4, lines 22-24). While the Rutter Guide and other
practice treaties are good reference materials, copying and pasting passages from them into a
motion without applying the law t0 the facts at the case does not a Winning motion make.
The COUNTY has failed to establish whether the portions 0f the First Amended
\DOOQON
Complaint it moves to have stricken are irrelevant, false, improper or not drawn or filed in
conformity with the laws ofthe state, as required under California Code ofCivil Procedure §
10 436. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court must deny the COUNTY’S motion t0 strike, 0r at
LLP
11 a minimum allow Plaintiff the opportunity to cure by amendment.
Floor 12 II. LEGAL STANDARD IN RULING ON A MOTION T0 STRIKE
MANSUKHANI,
52nd
90071 13 A motion to strike lies to strike any “irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any
Street,
CA 14 pleading,” 0r to strike any pleading or part thereof “not drawn or filed in conformity With the
SCULLY
Angeles,
15 laws 0f this state, a court rule, 0r an order of the court.” (See, California Code ofCivil Procedure
Fifth
16 § 436.) As with a demurrer, the grounds for a motion to strike must appear 0f the face 0f the
West Los
REES
17 pleading under attack, 0r from matter that the court may judicially notice. (See, California Code
633
GORDON
18 osz'vil Procedure § 437.)1 In bringing a motion to strike, the moving party must identify all 0f
19 the specific allegations it believes are subject to being stricken and identifv with lggal support
20 the basis 0f the deficiencies. (See, California Code ofCivil Procedure § 435.5(a)(1).) The failure
21 t0 include points and authorities supporting each ground for the motion may be treated as an
22 admission the motion is not meritorious, and serves as a ground to deny the motion. (California
23 Rules 0f Court, Rule 3.1 1 1 3(a).)
24 California Code of Civil Procedure § 452 provides, “[i]in the construction of a pleading,
25 for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, With a View
26 t0 substantial justice between the parties.” (See also, Stevens v, Superior Court (1999) 75
27
As with the demurer, the motion to strike references but does not include a request for judicial notice and
1
28
declaration of a County employee.
-2-
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE
FIRST AMENDED PETITION
Preview
. «iiwucaWA» a ANDREW C. HARRIS (SBN: 208706) acharris@grsm.com NICHOLAS M. KREBs (SBN: 306996) F: i LE D nkrebs@grsm.com SUPERiOR Eggfilmmo GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP cgmgggggéfim ” ‘J Wairam 633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 [jQV 2 3 ZUZT Telephone: (213) 576-5000 Facsimile: (213) 680-4470 BY Attorneys for Plaintiff and Petitioner, SNOW-LINE PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION, LLC \OOOVON SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 10 SNOW-LINE PRESERVATION CASE NO.: CIVSB21 17580 LLP ASSOCIATION, LLC, a California Limited 11 Liability Company, Assigned to Hon.Wi1fred J. Schneider, Jr. Dept. S-32 For All Purposes Floor 12 Plaintiff and OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MANSUKHANI, Petitioner, 52nd 9007] 13 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY’S VS. MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS Street, CA 14 OF THE FIRST AMENDED SNOW-LINE ORCHARD, LLC, a PETITION SCULLY Fifth Angeles, 15 California Limited Liability Company; THE HUDSON LIVING TRUST, a California West Los 16 MICHAEL HUDSON, an individual; trust; Date: December 8, 2021 REES SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, a VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV Time: 9:00 a.m. 633 17 Municipal Corporation; CALIFORNIA Dept: S-32 DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC GORDON 18 BEVERAGE CONTROL, a Governmental Complaint filed: June 7, 2021 Agency; and DOES through 100, 1 TSC: December 20, 2021 19 inclusive, Trial Date: Not yet assigned 20 Defendants, 21 Respondents, and Real 22 Parties In Interest. 23 Plaintiff and Petitioner SNOW-LINE PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION (“SLPA”) 24 submits the following Opposition to Defendant SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY’S 25 (“COUNTY”) Motion t0 Strike. 26 I. INTRODUCTION 27 Except for a brief citation to California Code osz'vil Procedure § 436(a), the 28 -1- OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE FIRST AMENDED PETITION COUNTY’S Motion t0 Strike is a verbatim cut and paste of the points and authorities filed in support of its demurrer, even t0 the point of including the inexplicable reference to “pleadings directed at public entities, such as the County 0f Los Angeles, and its employees, Deputies UI-PUJN Spurrier and Rosa.” (See, Motion at page 4, lines 22-24). While the Rutter Guide and other practice treaties are good reference materials, copying and pasting passages from them into a motion without applying the law t0 the facts at the case does not a Winning motion make. The COUNTY has failed to establish whether the portions 0f the First Amended \DOOQON Complaint it moves to have stricken are irrelevant, false, improper or not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws ofthe state, as required under California Code ofCivil Procedure § 10 436. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court must deny the COUNTY’S motion t0 strike, 0r at LLP 11 a minimum allow Plaintiff the opportunity to cure by amendment. Floor 12 II. LEGAL STANDARD IN RULING ON A MOTION T0 STRIKE MANSUKHANI, 52nd 90071 13 A motion to strike lies to strike any “irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any Street, CA 14 pleading,” 0r to strike any pleading or part thereof “not drawn or filed in conformity With the SCULLY Angeles, 15 laws 0f this state, a court rule, 0r an order of the court.” (See, California Code ofCivil Procedure Fifth 16 § 436.) As with a demurrer, the grounds for a motion to strike must appear 0f the face 0f the West Los REES 17 pleading under attack, 0r from matter that the court may judicially notice. (See, California Code 633 GORDON 18 osz'vil Procedure § 437.)1 In bringing a motion to strike, the moving party must identify all 0f 19 the specific allegations it believes are subject to being stricken and identifv with lggal support 20 the basis 0f the deficiencies. (See, California Code ofCivil Procedure § 435.5(a)(1).) The failure 21 t0 include points and authorities supporting each ground for the motion may be treated as an 22 admission the motion is not meritorious, and serves as a ground to deny the motion. (California 23 Rules 0f Court, Rule 3.1 1 1 3(a).) 24 California Code of Civil Procedure § 452 provides, “[i]in the construction of a pleading, 25 for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, With a View 26 t0 substantial justice between the parties.” (See also, Stevens v, Superior Court (1999) 75 27 As with the demurer, the motion to strike references but does not include a request for judicial notice and 1 28 declaration of a County employee. -2- OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE FIRST AMENDED PETITION