Defendant Kiersten Firquain's Motion to Strike the Entirety of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint
Estate of James E Lough 26PR000055
PETITION FOR INSTRUCTION TO REVOKE TRUST BY ITS OWN TERMS
TENTATIVE RULING: The matter is CONTINUED to August 27, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. B to allow Petitioner to provide sufficient notice of the Petition. (Prob. Code, § 17203 [30 days].)
CIVIL LAW & MOTION CALENDAR – Hon. Joseph J. Solga, Dept. B (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.
Red Target, LLC dba SCJ Commercial Financial 23CV000301 Services v. Kiersten Firquain
DEFENDANT KIERSTEN FIRQUAIN’S MOTION TO STRIKE THE ENTIRETY OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
APPEARANCE REQUIRED: The motion to strike the First Amended Complaint is DENIED. The Court is inclined to not exercise its discretion to dismiss the action for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. However, as Plaintiff failed to oppose the Motion, the Court orders the parties to appear in order that it may hear from Plaintiff regarding its commitment to pursuing its claims.
Defendant Kiersten Firquain moves, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 435, subdivision (b)(1) and 436, subdivision (b), for an Order striking, in its entirety, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed on or about April 4, 2026 (FAC).2 Firquain also moves for an order dismissing the action pursuant to Section 583.420, subdivision (a)(2)(A).
Firquain asks the Court to strike the FAC on grounds that the Court issued an order on October 18, 2023, compelling Plaintiff to file the pleading “within 30 days” of the order. (See Support Memo at 3:6-9.) The subject Order, entered on stipulation of the parties, states “Plaintiff shall file its First Amended Complaint within thifiy (30) days after the date of the Court’s Order in connection with this Stipulation . . ..” (October 18, 2023, Order at 2:10-11.) The Order does not, however, provide any consequence for non-compliance. It appears that the parties did not contemplate non-compliance when entering into the stipulation.
The Court notes that “[a] party may amend its pleading once without leave of the court at any time before the answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed . . ..” (Code Civ. Proc., § 472
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?”
2 All subsequent statutory references herein are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise noted.
In this context, the Court is unable to conclude that the FAC was “not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court” and, therefore, Firquain’s request for an order striking the FAC is DENIED.
Firquain contends that “Code of Civil Procedure § 583.420 [subdivision] (a)(2)(A) . . . gives the Court the discretional authority to dismiss this action.” (Support memo at 4:24-25.)
Section 583.410 provides that “[t]he court may in its discretion dismiss an action for delay in prosecution pursuant to this article on its own motion or on motion of the defendant if to do so appears to the court appropriate under the circumstances of the case.” Section 583.420 prohibits the Court from exercising this discretion except under specifically enumerated conditions. Section 583.420, subdivision (a)(2)(A), provides that one of the conditions under which the Court may exercise its discretion (and dismiss an action for delay in prosecution) is where “[t]he action is not brought to trial within . . . [t]hree years after the action is commenced against the defendant . . ..”
The Court shares Firquain’s concerns regarding the age of the instant litigation and the significant and unexplained delays in the period between the Court’s October 18, 2023, Order providing for the filing of an amended complaint, and Plaintiff’s filing of the FAC on April 4, 2026. The Court also takes Plaintiff’s failure to file any opposition to the instant motion as a further reflection on Plaintiff’s interest in pursuing its claims.
Nevertheless, the Court recognizes the strong policy in California that parties should be allowed their day in Court. Plaintiff has demonstrated an interest in pursuing its claims as recently as April 4, 2026. The Court further notes that, while Plaintiff has not been diligent in prosecuting the instant action, Firquain has not been diligent in formally defending it. As noted, the Complaint was filed in March, 2023, and the FAC was filed in April, 2026. However, until the instant motion, Firquain had not filed any answer to, demurrer to, or motion to strike either pleading.
Based on the foregoing, the Court is inclined not to exercise its discretion to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. However, it would like the parties to appear in order to hear from Plaintiff regarding its commitment to pursuing its claims going forward.
JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. v. Sophay Seng 25CV000013
MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL AND ENTER JUDGMENT UNDER TERMS OF STIPULATED SETTLEMENT
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED. The Court will sign the Proposed Order and Proposed Judgment.
8