Defendant's Motion to Strike
OVERRULED. Any claim of attorney-client privilege or attorney work product protection shall be supported by a privilege log sufficient to evaluate the claim. The request to deem all objections waived is DENIED. The request for monetary sanctions is DENIED. The Court finds Administrator's opposition was supported by substantial justification concerning the relationship between this proceeding and the related civil action. Moving Party to submit a proposed order in five court days that is consistent with this ruling.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23: ***There are no tentative rulings in Department 23***
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge David Hood in Department 24:
CV-23-001227 - CARSON HYBRID ENERGY STORAGE LLC vs TURLOCK IRRIGATION SYSTEM - Defendant's Motion to Strike - GRANTED. Code of Civil Procedure section 436 authorizes the Court to strike irrelevant, false, or improper matter and any pleading or portion thereof not drawn or filed in conformity with California law, a court rule, or an order of the Court.
The Court previously found that Plaintiffs' claims for damages are barred by sections 8.16 and 9.0 of the parties' ISISA, that any claim for delay damages would not be recoverable, and that the waiver contained in section 8.16 is effective and valid. The Court reiterated those findings in ruling on Defendants' motion to strike the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint again includes requests and allegations seeking actual damages, delay damages, and related monetary relief. Those allegations and prayers are stricken.
The Court also previously rejected Plaintiffs' allegations that the ISISA or section 8.16 constitutes an unenforceable contract of adhesion or unconscionable release, finding such arguments unsupported and legally untenable in light of section 8.6 of the parties' agreement. Plaintiffs' renewed allegations that the Study Agreement is adhesive, that section 8.16 was hidden or outside Plaintiffs' reasonable expectations, or that section 8.16 is unconscionable are therefore stricken.
The Court further finds that the Third Amended Complaint continues to include allegations concerning the Oak Flat/Patterson project, Marshall/Enchanted Rock project, Ardilla project, TID policies and procedures, queue handling, ATC, CAISO/WEIM access, RFPs, transmission applications, PLR requirements, and alleged third-party economic relationships that exceed the permissible scope of amendment and/or reallege matters previously ordered stricken. In the March 2026 ruling, the Court allowed Plaintiffs to maintain only challenged portions relating to the Second Cause of Action or solely to the Government Claims Act compliance requirement for that cause of action. Plaintiffs may not retain previously stricken matter by relabeling it as background, motive, bad faith, or context. Those allegations are stricken.
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?”
The court does not find any particular allegation as necessary to the surviving Second Cause of Action and not inconsistent with the Court's prior orders. Without addressing the issue of whether Defendant's motion is barred for seeking to strike on new grounds that could have been raised earlier, the Court finds that the challenged provisions may be stricken to enforce conformity with the court's prior orders limiting the permissible scope of amendment. Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 436(b). Accordingly, Defendants' motion to strike portions of Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint is granted. Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 436 (a).
The Court grants the motion without further leave to amend as to material previously ordered stricken and realleged in the Third Amended Complaint. To the extent Plaintiffs seek further leave, Plaintiffs must make a showing identifying what additional facts could be pleaded that would cure the defects and explaining how any proposed amendment would comply with the Court's prior orders. Any leave to amend would be limited to conformity to the Court's orders and to the maintenance of allegations limited to Plaintiff's Implied Covenant claims and Government Claims Act compliance only.
CV-24-000280 - BACHICHA, MARIA vs WILLIAMS, SHAKEELAH - Plaintiff's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - GRANTED.