CONDIT vs ALVARADO-GIL, et al.

24CV017664: CONDIT vs ALVARADO-GIL, et al. 07/24/2025 Hearing on Motion to Strike to Cross Complaint in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure: To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below.

If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court. Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED. Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/courtreporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf.

Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf. 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, 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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING: The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06, and does not provide the correct address for this Court’s Dept. 53/54. 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, along with the correct address for this Court’s Dept. 53/54. 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.

24CV017664: CONDIT vs ALVARADO-GIL, et al. 07/24/2025 Hearing on Motion to Strike to Cross Complaint in Department 53

Plaintiff/cross-defendant Condit’s motion to strike portions of the cross-complaint of Marie Alvarado-Gil and “Committee Alvarado Gil for Senate” (“Committee”) is ruled upon as follows.

The cross-complaint at issue does not comply with CRC Rule 2.112(3) to the extent (1) the cross complaint appears to be brought on behalf of not only defendant Alvarado-Gil but also Committee and (2) the individual causes of action fail to specify which party or parties on whose behalf they are brought. Additionally, while there appears to be two separate cross-complainants (i.e., Alvarado-Gil and Committee), the body of the crosscomplaint uses throughout only the singular term “cross-complainant.”

Factual Background

This action arises out of plaintiff Condit’s employment with defendants Alvarado-Gil and the California State Senate. His complaint filed on 9/5/2024 asserts various causes of action for harassment, discrimination, retaliation as well as both injunctive and declaratory relief.

On 11/12/2024, the two named defendants each filed a separate answer to the complaint and defendant Alvarado-Gil, along with Committee, filed on the same date a cross-complaint against plaintiff Condit for assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress and conversion.

Plaintiff Condit now moves to strike from the cross-complaint the entirety or significant portions of Paragraphs 18-27 and 33; the punitive damages allegations found in Paragraphs 38, 45 and 51, along with the concluding prayer for punitive damages; and the concluding prayer for “treble damages” and for “reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to California Penal Code section 496(c) or any other basis” on the grounds “the conclusory language of the Complaint [sic] regarding the request for punitive damages is insufficient as a matter of law” and “[t]hus, the above allegations and prayer for relief constitute irrelevant and/or improper matter under Code of Civil Procedure section 436(a).” (Not. of Mot., p.2:8-p.5:11.)

According to the moving papers, the allegations of the cross-complaint “are nothing more than a thinly veiled ‘bad character’ assassination of Condit relating his physical health and job performance, gossip and innuendo which neither add to, nor concern, the elements of her causes of action” and “[l]itigation and discovery concerning these irrelevant and collateral allegations will unnecessarily complicate and prolong the litigation of the claims actually being made ” (Mov. MPA, p.7:7-13.) Thus, “all of these free-floating, irrelevant and collateral allegations of supposed “bad character” and derogatory conduct of Mr.

Condit should be ordered stricken under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 436(a).” (Id., at p.7:13-15.) The moving papers further contend the “cross-complaint also includes punitive damages remedies, including a quasi-criminal claim under Penal

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017664: CONDIT vs ALVARADO-GIL, et al. 07/24/2025 Hearing on Motion to Strike to Cross Complaint in Department 53

Code §496(c)” which are not drawn in conformity with the law. (Id., at p.7:16-19.)

An opposition was filed, ostensibly on behalf of defendant Alvarado-Gil only (see, e.g., Opp. p.1:6, 12, footer; p.5:2-7), which argues that the allegations which plaintiff Condit now seeks to strike “inform” the causes of action for assault, IIED and conversion. Additionally, the opposition maintains that neither the punitive damages allegations nor the concluding prayer for same should not be struck because they are appropriately pleaded and meet the applicable standard. Finally, it is claimed that the Penal Code §496(c) allegations and concluding prayers for treble damages and attorney fees should not be stricken since no conviction is required for such relief.

Standards for Motions to Strike

A motion to strike is appropriate to strike out any irrelevant, false or improper matter asserted in any pleading and a court may strike out all or any party of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the law. (Code Civ. Pro. § 436 (a)-(c).) A motion to strike challenges portions of a cause of action that are substantively defective on the face of the complaint. (PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (Ibershof) (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1682-83; see also, Code Civ. Proc. §437.) More specifically, a motion to strike should be granted to remove 'any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading,' or where the pleadings are drawn in violation of a law, rule or court order. (Code Civ. Proc. §436.) Examples of “improper” matters include allegations which are 'at variance with the contract.' (California Sugar & White Pine Agency v. Penoyar (1914) 167 Cal. 274, 279.

“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 Civ. Proc. § 436.) A motion to strike is limited to the face of the challenged pleading or any matter of which the Court may take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc. §437(a).) However, the use of the motion to strike should be cautious and sparing and should not be considered a procedural “line item veto.” (PH II, Inc., supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at 1683.)

Discussion

Punitive Damages. According to the Notice of Motion, “the conclusory language of the Complaint [sic] regarding the request for punitive damages,” presumably referring to the allegations in Paragraphs 18-27 and 33 as well as Paragraphs 38, 45 and 51, are insufficient to plead a valid claim for punitive damages and “[t]hus, the above allegations and prayer for relief constitute irrelevant and/or improper matter under Code of Civil

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017664: CONDIT vs ALVARADO-GIL, et al. 07/24/2025 Hearing on Motion to Strike to Cross Complaint in Department 53

Procedure section 436(a).” (Not. of Mot., p.5:7-11.) The Court has carefully reviewed and considered the allegations in the above-cited paragraphs and rejects the suggestion that these allegations are impermissibly conclusory. Indeed, the cited allegations and especially those found in Paragraphs 18-27 and 33 include factual specificity which, if proven at trial, could enable a factfinder to reasonably conclude that plaintiff Condit had at the relevant times acted with malice, oppression and/or fraud sufficient to support an award of punitive damages under Civil Code §3294. Consequently, keeping in mind that these allegations must be accepted as true for purposes of this motion, plaintiff Condit’s motion to strike the punitive damages allegations on the grounds of being impermissibly conclusory, irrelevant and/or improper shall be denied.

Although not essential to the disposition of this motion, the Court adds that the moving papers’ suggestion about the cross-complaint’s allegations being “nothing more than a thinly veiled ‘bad character’ assassination of Condit relating his physical health and job performance, gossip and innuendo which neither add to, nor concern, the elements of her causes of action” also falls short of supplying a valid basis on which to grant this motion. Instead, these allegations are certainly relevant to the existing cause of action for assault and IIED to the extent they tend to show not only an ostensible explanation for the conduct allegedly constituting assault and IIED but also the deliberate intent underlying such conduct, as well as the alleged malice, oppression and/or fraud claimed to justify an award of punitive damages under Civil Code §3294.

Moreover, the First District Court of Appeal’s en banc decision in PH II, Inc., supra, explains that a motion to strike is not to be used as a “line item veto” to excise certain limited allegations from a pleading:

We emphasize that [the] use of the motion to strike should be cautious and sparing. We have no intention of creating a procedural “line item veto” for the civil defendant. However, properly used and in the appropriate case, a motion to strike may lie for purposes discussed in this opinion. (PH II, Inc., at 1683.)

In the case at bar, this Court perceived plaintiff Condit’s attempt to strike from the crosscomplaint the allegations of Paragraphs 18-27 and 33 because they amount to a ‘character assassination’ runs afoul of PH II, Inc.’s prohibition against using a motion to strike as a form of “line item veto” to eliminate certain unfavorable allegations. For this reason as well, the motion to strike these allegations will be denied.

Finally, plaintiff Condit’s assertion that these allegations “will unnecessarily complicate and prolong the litigation of the claims actually being made ” (Mov. MPA, p.7:7-13) is not a valid ground upon which to strike such allegations under Code of Civil Procedure

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017664: CONDIT vs ALVARADO-GIL, et al. 07/24/2025 Hearing on Motion to Strike to Cross Complaint in Department 53

§435 et seq.

Treble Damages and Attorney Fees Pursuant to Penal Code §496(c). The Court will grant the motion to strike as to the cross-complaint’s prayer for treble damages and attorney fees under Penal Code §496(c) since the opposition concedes that such relief is premised on the cause of action for conversion and since the Court has issued a tentative ruling sustaining plaintiff Condit’s demurrer to this same conversion cause of action.

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, plaintiff Condit’s motion to strike portions of the crosscomplaint is DENIED except as to the cross-complaint’s prayer for treble damages and attorney fees under Penal Code §496(c) for which the motion is GRANTED in such part.

Where this motion to strike has been granted, leave to amend is also GRANTED as this is the first challenge to the cross-complaint. An amended cross-complaint may be filed and served no later than 8/4/2025. Although not required by Court rule or statute, a copy of this order shall be provided if and when the amended cross-complaint is presented for filing.

Cross-defendant to respond within 30 days if the amended cross-complaint is personally served, 35 days if served by mail.

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