SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408-882-2210

DATE: July 21, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, you must call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

in Department 10. Defendant is ordered to file and serve an updated declaration with a proposed responsive pleading attached no later than July 29, 2026. Defendant is also ordered to provide notice of the continued motion hearing and the further case management conference. The court will prepare the order. Line 6 25CV469470 Brandon Spitzack v. Ford Click LINE 6 or scroll down for ruling. Motor Company et al. Line 7 25CV477921 Edward Jenkins v. Jim Plaintiff Edward Jenkins’s motion to compel discovery against Kanomata et al. defendant Grace Kanomata.

Notice is not proper; there is no proof of service of the motion. There is also no proof of service of summons on file for defendant Grace Kanomata. Discovery cannot commence until a defendant is served the summons and complaint. The motion also does not identify what type of discovery plaintiff seeks, citing only Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010 (describing the general scope of discoverable matters). The motion is DENIED. The court will prepare the order. Line 8 26CV486559 Eric Wiedemann v.

Click LINE 8 or scroll down for ruling. Juggernaut Consulting, LLC et al.

- oo0oo -

9:01 A.M. LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING Line 1 22CV403081 Camhong Pham v. David Abel Motion by defense counsel to be relieved as counsel of et al. record. Parties ordered to appear.

- oo0oo -

Calendar Line 8 Case Name: Eric Wiedemann v. Juggernaut Consulting, LLC et al. Case No.: 26CV486559

This is an action brought by self-represented plaintiff Eric Wiedemann (Plaintiff) against defendants Juggernaut Consulting, LLC (Juggernaut), April Mora, Gavin Mora, and Doe defendants. The original and still operative complaint alleges that defendants breached a Business Purchase Agreement for the sale of Red Light Day Spa, a business located in Los Gatos, California. The complaint alleges five causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) accounting; (3) money had and received; (4) declaratory relief; and (5) claim and delivery. There are no exhibits attached to the complaint. All five causes of action are brought against all defendants. Juggernaut is the only defendant represented by counsel.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations 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?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Other rulings by Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Judge Jeffrey B. El-Hajj dossier Other Motion to Strike in SANTACLARA All SANTACLARA County rulings Other Breach of contract cases Other denied rulings in SANTACLARA

Related rulings

by semantic similarity

Source

Print-friendly view

At issue is Plaintiff’s motion to strike certain filings. Defendant Juggernaut filed a timely opposition. Individual defendants April Mora and Gavin Mora filed untimely oppositions, which the court has not considered. The parties are admonished to comply with the Code of Civil Procedure and California Rules of Court regarding filing deadlines and document formatting. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b) [filing deadlines for motion paperwork].) Among other things, filings must comply with the line-spacing requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 2.108—single-spacing is not permitted.

The length of supporting memoranda, oppositions, and replies is governed by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113. Plaintiff’s 79-page reply brief substantially exceeds the 10-page limit for replies. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(d).) The court has considered only the first 10 pages of the reply. The court will not consider arguments raised in future filings if they do not comply with the Code of Civil Procedure and California Rules of Court.

LEGAL STANDARD FOR MOTIONS TO STRIKE

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 436, a court may strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted into any pleading, or strike out all or 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. The grounds for a motion to strike must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from matters of which the court may take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437, subd. (a); unspecified statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure; City and County of San Francisco v. Strahlendorf (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1911, 1913.) In ruling on a motion to strike, the court reads the challenged pleading as a whole, all parts in their context, and assumes the truth of all well-pleaded allegations. (Turman v. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.)

The court cannot consider extrinsic evidence in ruling on a motion to strike. That includes declarations. The court has considered Plaintiff’s declaration submitted with the motion only to the extent it discusses the meet and confer efforts required by statute. While the declaration and other moving papers refer to or list “exhibits,” none of the documents were submitted with the motion. Those exhibits would constitute extrinsic evidence and would not have been considered even if they had been submitted with the initial motion. The court has also not considered Plaintiff’s supplemental declaration included with the reply brief, or any of the attached exhibits.

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1322(a) requires that “[a] notice of motion to strike a portion of a pleading must 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. Specifications in a notice must be numbered consecutively.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1322(a).)

Finally, “points raised in the reply brief for the first time will not be considered, unless good reason is shown for failure to present them before.” (Proctor v. Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1273.) The court has not considered any arguments made for the first time in Plaintiff’s reply, such as his attempt to apply the sham pleading doctrine. The court has not considered any of the documents attached to the reply brief as exhibits. (Golden Door Properties, LLC v. Superior Court (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 733, 774 [new evidence is not permitted in reply papers unless it is “strictly responsive” to arguments made for the first time in the opposition].)

Plaintiff seeks to strike “the February 27, 2026 defense filing and the March 19, 2026 filed CIV-141 packets for April Mora and Gavin Mora, in whole, or alternatively striking all unrelated and contradictory portions in either or both submission cycles, or as to either filing as the Court finds appropriate.” (Notice of Motion and Motion at p. 2:5-8.) The stated authority for the motion to strike is Code of Civil Procedure section 436. (Id. at p. 6:29-30.)

The only “defense filings” on February 27 were an opposition (with attachments) to an ex parte application made by Plaintiff, and a proof of service of that opposition. That opposition was filed by April Mora “on the basis of defective service.” The only “defense filings” on March 19 were two declarations in support of an automatic extension of time for a demurrer or motion to strike, filed by April Mora and Gavin Mora, respectively, and proofs of service for those declarations.

A party “within the time to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof.” (§ 435, subd. (b)(1), italics added.) Section 435, subdivision (a) defines “pleading”: “As used in this section: (1) The term ‘complaint’ includes a cross-complaint. (2) The term ‘pleading’ means a demurrer, answer, complaint or crosscomplaint.” “The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms that 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.” (§ 436.)

None of the documents filed on February 27 or March 19 are pleadings. They are not complaints, cross-complaints, answers, or demurrers. They are not the proper target of a motion to strike. Self-represented parties “are held to the same standards as attorneys” and must comply with the rules of civil procedure. (Kobayashi v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 543; Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985.) The motion to strike must be denied.

Plaintiff’s motion to strike also requests other relief related to other documents designated as “exhibits” by Plaintiff, which were not submitted with the motion. (Notice of Motion and Motion at pp. 8:18-10:8.) That requested relief is denied. (See Allen v. City of 11

Sacramento (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 41, 52 [“We are not required to examine undeveloped claims or to supply arguments for the litigants”].) Plaintiff has not demonstrated any basis for the relief requested.

For example, Plaintiff requests sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 128.5 and 177.5. Sanctions under section 128.5 are typically awarded for frivolous actions and tactics, defined as including but not limited to “the making or opposing of motions or the filing and service of a complaint, cross-complaint, answer, or other responsive pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 128.5(b)(1).) Even assuming that the February 2026 and March 2026 filings include false or incorrect information, that would not support sanctions under section 128.5. Sanctions under section 177.5 can be imposed for violation of a lawful court order without good cause or substantial justification. (Code Civ. Proc. § 177.5.) Plaintiff has failed to show how the challenged filings violate any court order.

The motion to strike and the reply also reference Penal Code section 118. To enforce a Penal Code section in civil court, there must be a private tort right of action to enforce the specific Penal Code section. (Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Mendes (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 136, 145; see also Vasquez v. SOLO 1 Kustoms, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 84, 90-91 [“The Legislature’s intention to create a private cause of action must be expressly stated or strongly implied in the statutory language or legislative history.”].) Penal Code section 118 does not contain any such language, and Plaintiff provides no authority for the proposition that the Penal Code section is enforceable in a civil lawsuit between private parties.

Plaintiff has also filed a “request for judicial referral and charging action,” based on the same February 27, 2026, and March 19, 2026, filings. It is generally duplicative of the motion to strike, and is denied for the same reasons the motion to strike is denied.

Plaintiff’s motion to strike “the February 27, 2026 defense filing and the March 19, 2026 filed CIV-141 packets for April Mora and Gavin Mora, in whole, or alternatively striking all unrelated and contradictory portions in either or both submission cycles, or as to either filing as the Court finds appropriate,” is denied. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions and other relief based on those same filings is denied.

The court will prepare the order.