Preview
HANNON
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Jun-09-2014 3:44 pm
Case Number: CGC-14-538489
Filing Date: Jun-09-2014 3:42
Filed by:
Juke Box: 001 Image: 04511641
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
SEAN MARTIN VS. SHANON LOFTUS et al
001004511641
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.www.hedanichoy.com
Hedani, Choy, Spalding & Salvagione, LLP
595 Market Street | Suite 1100 | San Francisco CA 94105
Tel (415) 778-0800 | Fax (415) 778-0700
CoC em Nd DAH FF WH —&
Doe Be Be Be Be em ee eB
So 0D ODN DH BF BW HY SF GS
©
RANDALL P. CHOY (SBN 83194)
CHARLIE W. YU (SBN 268233)
HEDANI, CHOY, SPALDING & SALVAGIONE LLP
595 Market Street, Suite 1100 CLep,
San Francisco, CA 94105 by:
The Coup
Telephone: (415) 778-0800 ——~_ eT
Facsimile: (415) 778-0700 €pyry
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SEAN MARTIN
“Ff Pu 3 an
SUPERIOR GOURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
SEAN MARTIN, an individual, CASE NO. CGC-14-538489
Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF MARTIN’S MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE
vs. DEFENDANT LOFTUS’S ANSWER
SHANON LOFTUS, an individual; [CCP § 435]
CHRISTOPHER FENSTER, an individual;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Date: July 10, 2014
Time: 9:30 am
Defendants. Dept.: 501
INTRODUCTION
On April 8, 2014, Plaintiff SEAN MARTIN filed a verified Complaint for Partition of
Real Property. On June 2, 2014, Defendant SHANON LOFTUS filed a verified Answer with a
general denial.
Plaintiff SEAN MARTIN moves for an Order striking the Answer on the grounds that
the Answer contains irrelevant and improper matter, and that the Answer is not drawn and filed
in conformity with the laws of this state.
1
PLAINTIFF MARTIN’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT
LOFTUS’S ANSWER
CASE NO. CGC-14-538489Tel (415) 778-0800 | Fax (415) 778-0700
www.hedanichoy.com
Hedani, Choy, Spalding & Salvagione, LLP
595 Market Street | Suite 1100 | San Francisco CA 94105
oO mem NY DH FF Ww NH
Oe a ia a a ee
oO MWD N DH PB WH KFS
© 9°
ARGUMENT
“Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice
of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof.” (Code of Civil Procedure § 435(b)(1).)
“The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion,
and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted
in any pleading. (b) Strike out all 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 court.” (Code of Civil Procedure §
436.)
Plaintiff SHANON LOFTUS filed a general denial in response to a verified Complaint.
However, a general denial is not sufficient to controvert a verified complaint (even if the
answer, containing such denial, is verified): i.e., a verified complaint must be denied positively
or according to information and belief. (Code of Civil Procedure § 431.30(d); City of Hollister
y. Monterey Insurance Co. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 455, 476.) Code of Civil Procedure §
431.30(d) provides that:
If the complaint is subject to Article 2 (commencing with Section 90) of Chapter
5.1 of Title 1 of Part 1 or is not verified, a general denial is sufficient but only
puts in issue the material allegations of the complaint. If the complaint is verified,
unless the complaint is subject to Article 2 (commencing with Section 90) of
Chapter 5.1 of Title 1 of Part 1, the denial of the allegations shall be made
positively or according to the information and belief of the defendant. However, if
the cause of action is a claim assigned to a third party for collection and the
complaint is verified, the denial of the allegations shall be made positively or
according to the information and belief of the defendant, even if the complaint is
Subject to Article 2 (commencing with Section 90) of Chapter 5.1 of Title 1 of
art 1.
Here, because the Complaint was verified, a general denial is not sufficient under Code of Civil
Procedure § 431.30(d). As such, the Answer is irrelevant and improper, and the Answer is not
drawn or filed in conformity with Code of Civil Procedure § 431.30(d).
"
W
HW
2
PLAINTIFF MARTIN’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT
LOFTUS’S ANSWER
CASE NO. CGC-14-538489‘www.hedanichoy.com
Tel (415) 778-0800 | Fax (415) 778-0700
Hedani, Choy, Spalding & Salvagione, LLP
595 Market Street | Suite 1100 | San Francisco CA 94105
oem IN DH PB WN
Doe Se Be Be eB Be ee Be oe
oO MN DWH PB WH KS
© 98
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing facts and authorities, Plaintiff SEAN MARTIN respectfully
requests that the court issue an order striking Plaintiff SHANON LOFTUS’s Answer.
DATED: June 9, 2014 HEDANI, CHOY, SPALDING & SALVAGIONE
Yay M3-
CHARLIE W. YU
Attorney for Plaintiff
SEAN MARTIN
3
PLAINTIFF MARTIN’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT
LOFTUS’S ANSWER
CASE NO. CGC-14-538489
Preview
HANNON SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Jun-09-2014 3:44 pm Case Number: CGC-14-538489 Filing Date: Jun-09-2014 3:42 Filed by: Juke Box: 001 Image: 04511641 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES SEAN MARTIN VS. SHANON LOFTUS et al 001004511641 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.www.hedanichoy.com Hedani, Choy, Spalding & Salvagione, LLP 595 Market Street | Suite 1100 | San Francisco CA 94105 Tel (415) 778-0800 | Fax (415) 778-0700 CoC em Nd DAH FF WH —& Doe Be Be Be Be em ee eB So 0D ODN DH BF BW HY SF GS © RANDALL P. CHOY (SBN 83194) CHARLIE W. YU (SBN 268233) HEDANI, CHOY, SPALDING & SALVAGIONE LLP 595 Market Street, Suite 1100 CLep, San Francisco, CA 94105 by: The Coup Telephone: (415) 778-0800 ——~_ eT Facsimile: (415) 778-0700 €pyry Attorneys for Plaintiff SEAN MARTIN “Ff Pu 3 an SUPERIOR GOURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION SEAN MARTIN, an individual, CASE NO. CGC-14-538489 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF MARTIN’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE vs. DEFENDANT LOFTUS’S ANSWER SHANON LOFTUS, an individual; [CCP § 435] CHRISTOPHER FENSTER, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Date: July 10, 2014 Time: 9:30 am Defendants. Dept.: 501 INTRODUCTION On April 8, 2014, Plaintiff SEAN MARTIN filed a verified Complaint for Partition of Real Property. On June 2, 2014, Defendant SHANON LOFTUS filed a verified Answer with a general denial. Plaintiff SEAN MARTIN moves for an Order striking the Answer on the grounds that the Answer contains irrelevant and improper matter, and that the Answer is not drawn and filed in conformity with the laws of this state. 1 PLAINTIFF MARTIN’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT LOFTUS’S ANSWER CASE NO. CGC-14-538489Tel (415) 778-0800 | Fax (415) 778-0700 www.hedanichoy.com Hedani, Choy, Spalding & Salvagione, LLP 595 Market Street | Suite 1100 | San Francisco CA 94105 oO mem NY DH FF Ww NH Oe a ia a a ee oO MWD N DH PB WH KFS © 9° ARGUMENT “Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof.” (Code of Civil Procedure § 435(b)(1).) “The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (b) Strike out all 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 court.” (Code of Civil Procedure § 436.) Plaintiff SHANON LOFTUS filed a general denial in response to a verified Complaint. However, a general denial is not sufficient to controvert a verified complaint (even if the answer, containing such denial, is verified): i.e., a verified complaint must be denied positively or according to information and belief. (Code of Civil Procedure § 431.30(d); City of Hollister y. Monterey Insurance Co. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 455, 476.) Code of Civil Procedure § 431.30(d) provides that: If the complaint is subject to Article 2 (commencing with Section 90) of Chapter 5.1 of Title 1 of Part 1 or is not verified, a general denial is sufficient but only puts in issue the material allegations of the complaint. If the complaint is verified, unless the complaint is subject to Article 2 (commencing with Section 90) of Chapter 5.1 of Title 1 of Part 1, the denial of the allegations shall be made positively or according to the information and belief of the defendant. However, if the cause of action is a claim assigned to a third party for collection and the complaint is verified, the denial of the allegations shall be made positively or according to the information and belief of the defendant, even if the complaint is Subject to Article 2 (commencing with Section 90) of Chapter 5.1 of Title 1 of art 1. Here, because the Complaint was verified, a general denial is not sufficient under Code of Civil Procedure § 431.30(d). As such, the Answer is irrelevant and improper, and the Answer is not drawn or filed in conformity with Code of Civil Procedure § 431.30(d). " W HW 2 PLAINTIFF MARTIN’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT LOFTUS’S ANSWER CASE NO. CGC-14-538489‘www.hedanichoy.com Tel (415) 778-0800 | Fax (415) 778-0700 Hedani, Choy, Spalding & Salvagione, LLP 595 Market Street | Suite 1100 | San Francisco CA 94105 oem IN DH PB WN Doe Se Be Be eB Be ee Be oe oO MN DWH PB WH KS © 98 CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing facts and authorities, Plaintiff SEAN MARTIN respectfully requests that the court issue an order striking Plaintiff SHANON LOFTUS’s Answer. DATED: June 9, 2014 HEDANI, CHOY, SPALDING & SALVAGIONE Yay M3- CHARLIE W. YU Attorney for Plaintiff SEAN MARTIN 3 PLAINTIFF MARTIN’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT LOFTUS’S ANSWER CASE NO. CGC-14-538489