Motion to Strike
24CV013308: MCINTYRE vs CITY OF SACRAMENTO, A CALIFORNIA CHARTER CITY, et al. 09/03/2025 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 53
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Public Notice Civil Division Wednesday Law and Motion Calendar any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 25, located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Julie G. Yap presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party 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, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.
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.
The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Courts Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing. The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept25 SIP Address: 16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16113421868 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/court-reporters/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 Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.
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?”
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
24CV013308: MCINTYRE vs CITY OF SACRAMENTO, A CALIFORNIA CHARTER CITY, et al. 09/03/2025 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 53
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 Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Universal Protection Service, LP dba Allied Universal Security Services (Allied) motion to strike certain allegations in the first amended cross-complaint (1AXC) of Defendant and Cross-Complainant City of Sacramento (the City) is DENIED.
Allied moves to strike the following language from the 1AXC:
The phrase, [f]or a judgment against Cross-Defendants of partial equitable indemnity for any sum the City must pay Plaintiff, or any party herein; (page 11, ¶ 6, lines 15 to 16); 2.
The phrase, [f]or a judgment against Cross-Defendants for damages in accordance wit [sic] the allegations contained in the Citys cause of action for negligence, including but not limited to, general damages, special damages, attorneys fees, Court costs, investigative costs, and expert fees and costs, according to proof; (page 11, ¶ 9, lines 23 to 26).
As is further explained in the Courts concurrent ruling on Allieds demurrer to the 1AXC, since filing this motion, it appears the parties continued their meet and confer efforts, and the City has voluntarily dismissed its third and fifth causes of action. Accordingly, the Court need not address any arguments relating to the third and fifth causes of action. The parties are commended for their ability to resolve certain issues informally without the need for court intervention. However, as there remains one unresolved issue, the Court will address the merits regarding the cause of action for negligence.
Regarding the cause of action for negligence, Allieds arguments appear to coincide with the arguments raised in its demurrer the cause of action for negligence is barred by the economic loss rule. (Mov. P&A, p. 5:4-6.) Allied contends that because the claim for negligence is barred, the Citys claim for recovery of damages, under a theory of negligence, is not supported by California law. Therefore, Allied requests that this Court
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
24CV013308: MCINTYRE vs CITY OF SACRAMENTO, A CALIFORNIA CHARTER CITY, et al. 09/03/2025 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 53
strike all claims for recovery under theory of negligence from the 1AXC.
As the Court has sustained Allieds demurrer as to the fourth cause of action for negligence, with leave to amend, this related motion to strike is also GRANTED with leave to amend.
The City may file and serve an amended cross complaint no later than September 19, 2025. Although not required by statute or court rule, the City is directed to present the clerk a copy of this ruling at the time of filing any Second Amended Cross-Complaint.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules Court, rule 3.1312.)