DecisionDepot
California Legal Research
All cases
2025-1522605·orange·Civil·Professional Negligence
SUSTAINED

Leach vs. Qsafi

Demurrer to Complaint; Motion to Strike

Hearing date
May 13, 2026
Department
N18
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

DemurrerMotion to Strike

Causes of action

Breach of contractMedical batteryProfessional negligence

Parties

PlaintiffElizabeth S. Leach
DefendantJavid F. Osafi, DMD

Ruling

rule or an order of the court. Code Civ. Proc. § 436. “Irrelevant” matters include: allegations not essential to the claim, allegations neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or a demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc. § 431.10(b).) A motion to strike can also strike legal conclusions. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide, Civil Proc. before Trial, ¶ 7:179 (2010).) Conclusory allegations are permitted, however, if they are supported by other factual allegations in the complaint. (Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App. 3d 1, 6.)

Motions to strike are disfavored. Pleadings are to be construed liberally with a view to substantial justice. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 452; Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide, Civil Proc. before Trial, ¶ 7:197 (2010).) The allegations of the complaint are presumed true; they are read as a whole and in context. (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.)

Cross-Defendant cites to the parties’ contract which includes a provision for the waiver of damages. (See Cross-Complaint, Ex. B, § 9.14.) Whether this provision precludes the requested damages or alternatively is unconscionable, is a determination for another day. Similarly, whether the claimed damages are speculative as they are based on an engineering calculation of estimated cost savings, is irrelevant at the pleading state.

Because Cross-Complainants adequately plead damages as a result of the alleged breach of contract, the motion to strike is denied.

15. 2025-1522605 Defendant Javid F. Osafi, DMD’s Demurrer to Plaintiff Elizabeth S. Leach vs. Qsafi Leach’s Complaint is sustained with 15 days’ leave to amend.

In her “opposition,” Plaintiff represents that she has agreed to dismiss her claims for breach of contract and medical battery, and that she intends to file a first amended complaint for professional negligence. (ROA 26.)

The Court finds it is in the interests of justice to sustain the demurrer with leave to amend. Defendant’s Motion to Strike is put off calendar as moot.

Plaintiff shall file and serve her amended pleading within 15 days of the notice of ruling.

Defendant shall give notice of the ruling.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Extracted by Gemini Flash from the ruling text. Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Source

Share