HEARING ON MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF 5th Amended COMPLAINT
FILED BY DOUGLAS PANKEY
* TENTATIVE RULING: *
The court rules as follows on Douglas Pankey’s Motion to Strike:
1, 3, and 4 - Denied. Civil Code section provides a privilege against liability, not an evidentiary or a pleading privilege. (Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 847, 914-915; Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.4th 634, 638, fn. 1.) That the court is permitting these allegations to stand does not mean that evidence proving them will be admissible at trial. Pankey is free to make a motion in limine and obtain a ruling on that issue then.
2 – Granted. Of the four allegations challenged, this is the only one that is being used to establish liability rather than to establish facts or provide context. Leave to amend is denied.
Hearing Date
September 16, 2020
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
HEARING ON MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF 5th Amended COMPLAINT
FILED BY DOUGLAS PANKEY
* TENTATIVE RULING: *
The court rules as follows on Douglas Pankey’s Motion to Strike:
1, 3, and 4 - Denied. Civil Code section provides a privilege against liability, not an evidentiary or a pleading privilege. (Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 847, 914-915; Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.4th 634, 638, fn. 1.) That the court is permitting these allegations to stand does not mean that evidence proving them will be admissible at trial. Pankey is free to make a motion in limine and obtain a ruling on that issue then.
2 – Granted. Of the four allegations challenged, this is the only one that is being used to establish liability rather than to establish facts or provide context. Leave to amend is denied.