Motion to Strike
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 1 Honorable Eunice Lee, Presiding TBD, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113
DATE: July 14, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, call the Court at (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to also let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling, in accordance with California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) and Local Rule 8D.
**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS 9:00 A.M. LINE 1 24CV430173 Lee Leong vs Motion for Sanctions Ashley A. Lopez OFF CALENDAR. On March 26, 2026, the parties notified the court of a settlement agreement. On July 9, 2026, the moving party/defendant Lopez moved to dismiss the motion. LINE 2 24CV433824 Joseph Alejandro Motion to Appoint Appraiser for Partition vs Hugo Santos et OFF CALENDAR. On July 6, 2026, the parties reached a stipulation for al interlocutory judgment of partition and appointment of referee, which the Court granted.
The parties moved to vacate this hearing date. LINE 3 24CV442351 City of San Jose Permanent Injunction and Entry of Default Judgment vs Roy Abbott Parties to Appear. Scroll down to Line 3 for Tentative Ruling. LINE 4 24CV451675 Leticia Reyes Motion for Leave to File Parral vs Sandridge Scroll down to Line 4 for Tentative Ruling. LLP et al LINE 5 25CV463382 UHG I LLC vs Motion for Order to Deem Admissions Admitted Travis Fong Scroll down to Line 5 for Tentative Ruling. LINE 6 25CV467382 Daniel Kelly vs Petition to Compel Arbitration Ford Motor Scroll down to Line 6 for Tentative Ruling.
Company et al LINES 25CV469153 Aida Setka vs Motion to Strike (Line # 7) and Demurrer (Line # 8) 7-8 Subaru of Scroll down to Lines 7 - 8 for Tentative Ruling. America, Inc. et al LINE 9 25CV479068 Creditors Motion to Strike Adjustment Bureau, Scroll down to Line 9 for Tentative Ruling. Inc. vs Jam General Contractors Inc. et al.
- oo0oo -
has information leading him to believe that the allegations are true.” (Pridonoff v. Balokovich (1951) 36 Cal.2d 788, 792). In Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1158
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Here, plaintiff Setka’s allegation, on information and belief, concerning the existence of the Engine Defect is based upon her factual allegations that she experienced various symptoms she personally experienced with the Subject Vehicle and the multiple repair attempts she made which lead her to believe in the existence of the Engine Defect. Thus, the court is not persuaded by defendant Subaru’s argument that the sixth cause of action’s requirement of a material fact is too “vague” and “inconclusive.”
(b) Intent to Defraud Defendant Subaru argues next that in order to allege an intent to defraud, the defendant must have actual or constructive knowledge of the concealed fact but plaintiff has not alleged any facts establishing defendant Subaru had knowledge of the defect. Such allegations of knowledge and factual allegations about how defendant Subaru acquired such knowledge are found at paragraphs 82, 84, 87, 88, 89, and 90. The court finds such allegations sufficiently allege the factual detail to support the more general allegation of defendant Subaru’s knowledge of the alleged defect.
(c) Actual Damages Finally, defendant Subaru contends plaintiff Setka has not sufficiently alleged any damage resulting from the fraud. The court disagrees. At paragraphs 85 and 96, plaintiff Setka alleges she would not have purchased the Subject Vehicle had she known about the undisclosed defects at the time of sale.
III. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Defendant Subaru’s demurrer to the sixth cause of action in plaintiff Setka’s FAC on the ground that the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action [Code Civ. Proc., §430.10, subd. (e)] for fraudulent inducement-concealment and on the ground that the pleading is uncertain [Code Civ. Proc., §430.10, subd. (f)] is OVERRULED.
The Court will prepare the formal Order.
MOTION TO STRIKE (LINE #7) In light of the court’s ruling above with regard to the sixth cause of action, defendant Subaru’s motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages from plaintiff Setka’s FAC is DENIED. The Court will prepare the formal Order.
Calendar Lines # 9 Case Name Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. vs Jam General Contractors Inc. dba J A M General Contracts Inc., et al. Case No. 25 CV479068 Motion to Strike Before the court is plaintiff’s motion to strike answer. Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, the court issues its tentative ruling as follows.
I. BACKGROUND State Compensation Insurance Fund (“Fund”) and defendants Jam General Contractors Inc. dba JAM General Contractors Inc. (“JGCI” or “Defendants”) entered into a written agreement wherein Fund agreed to provide a policy of workers compensation insurance to JGCI and JGCI agreed to pay premiums in accordance with the terms and conditions of said policy. (Complaint, ¶11). Defendants breached that part of the policy requiring Defendants to submit to and allow Fund to access the records of Defendants’ business operations and payroll for purposes of conducting an audit, despite Fund’s request. (Complaint, ¶14). Thereafter, Fund generated an estimated invoice in the amount of $21,678.6. (Id). Defendants failed to pay anything towards this estimated invoice. (Id).
Fund assigned the claims sued herein upon to plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. (“CABI” or “Plaintiff”) for collection purposes only. (Complaint, ¶4). On October 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant JGCI asserting a single cause of action for breach of contract.
On December 10, 2025, Defendant JGCI filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint as a self-represented party.
On April 17, 2026, Plaintiff filed the motion now before the court, a motion to strike defendant JGCI’s answer.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 436 a motion to strike could be brought on the following two grounds: 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 corporation cannot appear in propria persona and can only appear by and through an attorney of record. (Merco Construction Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 731; see also CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1143). The prohibition is meant to prevent the unlicensed practice of law by a representative that would likely appear on behalf of the corporation. (Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284, fn. 5).
III. ANALYSIS Plaintiff asks this court to strike Defendant’s answer on the basis that Defendant may not represent itself without an attorney.
In opposition, Defendant does not dispute the proposition and authorities cited by Plaintiff. Instead, Defendant indicates it has “hired a lawyer, but . . . have not been able to pay for the retainer.” As of the hearing date of Plaintiff’s motion to strike, no formal substitution of attorney has been filed on behalf of Defendant.
IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s answer is GRANTED. The Court will prepare the formal Order.
17