CARTER, et al. vs THE LAW OFFICES OF JAMES L. ARRASMITH, P.C., et al.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

25CV010458: CARTER, et al. vs THE LAW OFFICES OF JAMES L. ARRASMITH, P.C., et al. 01/21/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Complaint in Department 25

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants’ motion to strike portions of plaintiffs’ complaint was continued to this date to permit defendants to meet and confer “in person or by telephone” with plaintiffs and then to file a joint statement addressing each of the individual allegations challenged by the present motion to strike and explaining the nature of any remaining dispute(s) requiring resolution. The Court has received and reviewed the parties’ Joint Statement filed on 1/8/2025 and now rules on defendants’ motion to strike as follows.

*** If oral argument is requested, the parties must at the time oral argument is requested notify the clerk and opposing counsel of the specific allegations challenged by this motion that will be addressed at the hearing. Counsel are also reminded that pursuant to local rules, only limited oral argument is permitted on law and motion matters. ***

Defendants’ Notice of Motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise him/her of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing in person, by Zoom or by telephone.

Defendants’ Notice of Motion does not comply with CRC Rule 3.1322(a), requiring a notice of motion to strike a portion of a pleading to “quote in full the portions sought to be stricken except where the motion is to strike an entire paragraph, cause of action, count, or defense.” (Underline added for emphasis.)

Factual Background

This action arises out of the three individual plaintiffs’ employment at a Sacramento law office. The complaint filed on 4/29/2025 alleges causes of action for harassment, discrimination, retaliation and “waiting time penalties” under the Labor Code.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV010458: CARTER, et al. vs THE LAW OFFICES OF JAMES L. ARRASMITH, P.C., et al. 01/21/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Complaint in Department 25

According to the Notice of Motion filed on 7/28/2025, defendants seek to strike 11 particular allegations and/or causes of action alleged in the complaint filed on 4/29/2025 on various grounds. (See, Not. of Mot., p.2:11-p.3:6.) Plaintiffs oppose.

General Standards Governing Motions to Strike

As pointed out in the Court’s 12/17/2025 Minute Order, a motion to strike is an appropriate vehicle to strike out any “irrelevant, false or improper” matter asserted in any pleading and/or a portion of a pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the law (Code Civ. Pro. §436) but the use of the motion to strike should be “cautious and sparing” and not considered a procedural “line item veto” which permits a party to surgically excise discrete allegations that do not otherwise have any genuine bearing on the sufficiency of the claim(s) asserted or the legal relief available. (See, e.g., PH II, Inc. v.

Superior Court (Ibershof) (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1682-1683.) Indeed, the First District Court of Appeal’s en banc decision in PH II, Inc. explained a motion to strike is certainly a proper means by which to challenge punitive damages allegations and may also lie when the face of the complaint fails to plead facts showing a primary right of the plaintiff and a primary duty of, or wrong committed by, the defendant. (Id. (citing Lodi v. Lodi (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 628, 631.) But the appellate panel cautioned that the other circumstances when a motion to strike is permissibly made or granted are limited, such as “a violation of the applicable statute of limitations or a purported claim of right which is legally invalid.” (Id.)

As such, evidentiary objections including but not limited to foundation, hearsay, admissibility and the like are generally not valid grounds for a motion to strike but instead are properly asserted only at trial or other evidentiary hearings. (See, e.g., Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 494 [pleadings are not typically evidentiary matters that are submitted to jury]; SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905 [demurrer tests sufficiency of allegations without regard to evidentiary support]; Ivanoff v. Bank of America, N.A. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 719, 725 [legal standard for demurrer and motion to strike is the same: To test legal sufficiency of factual allegations irrespective of party’s ability to prove them with admissible evidence].)

Discussion

As noted above, the Notice of Motion filed on 7/28/2025 identifies 11 particular allegations and/or causes of action alleged in the complaint which defendants seek to have stricken on various grounds. (See, Not. of Mot., p.2:11-p.3:6.) The parties’ Joint Statement generally addresses them in the same order found in the Notice of Motion, so

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV010458: CARTER, et al. vs THE LAW OFFICES OF JAMES L. ARRASMITH, P.C., et al. 01/21/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Complaint in Department 25

the Court will do the same.

Item 1. Paragraph 8 of the complaint alleges “[v]enue is proper in Alameda County” but the remainder of this paragraph expressly indicates that the named defendants are residents of Sacramento County and operate a law office there.

Although the reference to Alameda County is incorrect and apparently an oversight, the Court denies the motion to strike this reference since (1) this lawsuit was properly filed in Sacramento County where the named defendants are explicitly alleged to reside and operate a law office; (2) defendants have not filed any motion challenging the venue for this lawsuit; and (3) defendants have failed to demonstrate how or why the mistaken reference to Alameda County would have any genuine bearing on the sufficiency of the complaint, the causes of action asserted or the legal relief which may be available in this case.

Further, the Court notes that while Paragraph 8 is specifically identified in the Notice of Motion, defendants failed to provide in their moving Points and Authorities any argument or case law in support of their request to strike Paragraph 8. Likewise, while defendants’ position in the Joint Statement is that “this should be stricken,” defendants fail to provide any relevant case law or substantive argument to support this conclusory position. A court need not consider an issue where reasoned, substantial argument and citation to supporting authorities are lacking. (See, e.g., Woods v. Horton (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 658, 677; Addam v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 368, 373; People v. Gray (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 973, 994.)

Item 2. Paragraph 17 includes an “embedded screenshot” of what defendants claim is an “[i]rrelevant private text message [sic]” which includes “scandalous language” and for which “foundation [is] lacking.” (Not. of Mot., p.2:12-13.) In the Joint Statement, defendants again argue that the text messages don’t concern the employee-employer relationship and “their prejudicial value is substantially outweighed by its probative value [sic].” (Jt. Stm., p.1:26-27.)

Aside from defendants’ apparently mistaken suggestion that the probative value of these messages is substantially greater than the prejudice they might create, such matters relating to the admissibility of evidence are not properly resolved by a motion to strike and are ordinarily left to the determination of the trial judge. Moreover, pleadings filed by the parties are ordinarily not presented to the factfinder at trial and not considered evidence to be weighed and considered at trial. Coupled with the abovecited rules regarding motions to strike (i.e., their use should be “cautious and sparing” and not considered a procedural “line item veto”), defendants’ motion to strike

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV010458: CARTER, et al. vs THE LAW OFFICES OF JAMES L. ARRASMITH, P.C., et al. 01/21/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Complaint in Department 25

Paragraph 17 and/or the “embedded screenshot” shall be denied.

Further, as set forth below with respect to Paragraph 18, the use of the “racial epithet” included in the text message may also be relevant to plaintiffs’ claims including but not necessarily limited to those for harassment and discrimination based on race and/or color.

Item 3. Paragraph 18 alleges that one of the defendants used the “N-word[]” in referring to an employee and defendants move to strike this “racial epithet” as “prejudicial, unnecessary to frame claims” and “[i]t’s [sic] probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect.” (Not. of Mot., p.2:14-15.) In the Joint Statement, defendants contend these allegations relate to “a private communication to a third party,” “it lacks the nexus to the employment relationship as it was not directed towards Plaintiffs,” and “it is highly prejudicial compared to its probative value. (Jt. Stm., p.2:3-6.)

The motion to strike these allegations is denied not only for the reasons explained in the preceding paragraph but also because the use of this “racial epithet” may indeed be relevant to plaintiffs’ claims including but not necessarily limited to those for harassment and discrimination based on race and/or color regardless of the context in which the “racial epithet” was used.

Item 4. Paragraph 21 includes allegations about defendants hosting a “drug-fueled” birthday celebration as well as “two embedded photographs” of text messages relating to the birthday party. According to defendants, these should be stricken on grounds of “improper evidentiary detail.” (Not. of Mot., p.2:17-19.) In the Joint Statement, defendants maintain these allegations are “inflammatory, scandalous and devoid of factual support” especially since “no drugs [were] involved and the description was hyperbolic and satirical;” are “conclusory” and “hearsay.” (Jt. Stm., p.2:11-15.)

Aside from the fact that defendants did not actually advance a number of these grounds in the moving papers, defendants’ arguments are fundamentally evidentiary objections which are not properly raised via a motion to strike and are ordinarily resolved by the trial judge. Coupled with the fact that the challenged allegations in Paragraph 21 have no genuine bearing on the sufficiency of the complaint and relate to the conditions of employment and alleged communications regarding the conditions of employment which are themselves relevant to plaintiffs’ employment claims in this action. the motion to strike these allegations from Paragraph 21 shall be denied.

Item 5. Paragraph 31 alleges in its entirety, “It was also well known that those employees that engaged in sexual relationships with Defendant JAMES L. ARRASMITH

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV010458: CARTER, et al. vs THE LAW OFFICES OF JAMES L. ARRASMITH, P.C., et al. 01/21/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Complaint in Department 25

would receive special treatment.” Defendants seek to strike this allegation because it is “conclusory, speculative, unsupported.” (Not. of Mot., p.2:20-21.) In the Joint Statement, defendants add that “[t]here was no factual basis for the claim as it lacks names, dates, or specific instances concerning the special treatment.” (Jt. Stm., p.2:22- 24.)

The motion to strike Paragraph 31 is denied. First, Code of Civil Procedure §425.10(a) states that a complaint need only contain a “statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.” (Underline added for emphasis.) Second, since a complaint in California need assert only general allegations of ultimate fact, “evidentiary” facts are not required. (See, e.g., Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 47; Lim v. The.TV Corp. Internat. (2002) 99 Cal.

App. 4th 684, 690.) As such, plaintiffs were not under current California law obligated to provide “names, dates, or specific instances concerning the special treatment” to support this allegation as was suggested by defendants. Third, to the extent defendants may be challenging evidentiary foundation for this allegation, objections to the admissibility of evidence are not properly addressed via a motion to strike and are ordinarily resolved by the trial judge. Finally, coupled with the fact that pleadings are not typically presented to the factfinder at trial and the allegations in Paragraph 31 relate to plaintiffs’ claims for harassment and discrimination on the basis of sex, the motion to strike Paragraph 31 is denied.

Item 6. Defendants indicate in the Joint Statement that they are withdrawing their challenge to the allegations in Paragraph 32. (Jt. Stm., p.3:14-15.)

Item 7. Paragraph 44 alleges in part that one of the plaintiffs found defendant Arrasmith “in his office with a Pharoah costume on and appeared to be naked underneath it[,] on his couch with two of his employees whom he was known to be having sexual relationships with.” Defendants move to strike this allegation as it consists of an “[i]rrelevant description of Halloween costume” and is “inflammatory.” (Not. of Mot., p.2:25.) In the Joint Statement, defendants insist this allegation is “irrelevant and inflammatory, and under Evidence Code §352[,] it is “highly prejudicial compared to its probative value,” adding that “there is no allegation of actual nudity.” (Jt. Stm., p.2:26- p.3:1.)

The motion to strike Paragraph 44 will be denied since the sum and substance of defendants’ challenge is an objection to its admissibility at trial but as explained above, matters relating to the admissibility of evidence are not properly resolved by a motion to strike and are ordinarily left to the determination of the trial judge. Moreover, pleadings are ordinarily not presented to the factfinder at trial and not considered evidence to be

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV010458: CARTER, et al. vs THE LAW OFFICES OF JAMES L. ARRASMITH, P.C., et al. 01/21/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Complaint in Department 25

weighed and considered at trial. That said, the Court finds that the allegations of Paragraph 44 are likely relevant to plaintiffs’ claims including but not necessarily limited to those for harassment and discrimination based on gender especially when the incident is alleged to have occurred in the workplace. Thus, coupled with the fact that defendants’ challenge to Paragraph 44 has no genuine bearing on the sufficiency of the complaint, the Court declines to strike this paragraph based on defendants’ limited arguments.

Item 8. Paragraph 45 alleges, “In one particularly disturbing incident, Plaintiff TIFFANY JOHNSON was setting up a new employee’s computer to discover a two-hour video of Defendant JAMES L. ARRASMITH masturbating to OnlyFans on a work computer.” Defendants move to strike this allegation on the grounds it is “scandalous” and “lacking nexus.” (Not. of Mot., p.2:25.) In the Joint Statement, defendants add that “there is no nexus to the workplace or the employee’s actual duties or work conditions” and “[i]t was also not intended for employees and was accessed without authorization in violation of Defendant’s privacy and therefore cannot form the basis of a workplace harassment claim.” (Jt. Stm., p.3:7-10.)

Defendants’ arguments lack merit and are insufficient to justify an order striking Paragraph 45. While defendants contend there is “no nexus to the workplace,” it is expressly alleged that one employee was setting up a new employee’s computer and during this process, the former discovered a video of defendant Arrasmith masturbating while watching a video on a work computer. These allegations must be accepted as true for purposes of this motion to strike and are in this Court’s view more than sufficient to establish a “nexus to the workplace” and a legitimate bearing on plaintiffs’ claims in this case including but not necessarily limited to those for harassment and discrimination based on gender.

Defendants’ remaining arguments about the video not being “intended for employees” and “was accessed without authorization in violation of Defendant’s privacy” do not withstand scrutiny in the context of a motion to strike, as defendants have offered no legal authority which holds that these arguments constitute a valid legal defense to any of the causes of action now alleged in the complaint so as to support the relief requested through this procedural vehicle. (See, e.g., Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 939, 956 [when party fails to support assertion with citations to authority, point is treated as waived]; Utility Consumers’ Action Network v.

Public Utilities Comm. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 688, 697 [argument deemed waived where party fails to provide legal authority on point].) Accordingly, the motion to strike Paragraph 45 is denied as well.

Items 9-11. Defendants indicate in the Joint Statement that they are withdrawing their challenge to the punitive damages allegations and those causes of action asserted

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV010458: CARTER, et al. vs THE LAW OFFICES OF JAMES L. ARRASMITH, P.C., et al. 01/21/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Complaint in Department 25

against James L. Arrasmith, individually. (Jt. Stm., p p.3:14-15.)

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, defendants’ motion to strike is DROPPED as to Item Nos. 6 and 9-11 as set forth in the parties’ 1/8/2026 Joint Statement, and is DENIED as to the remainder.

If not already done, defendants to file and serve an answer to the complaint within 10 court days.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)