BENNETT vs SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, et al.

Plaintiff moves to strike all the affirmative defenses on the ground that they are “irrelevant, conclusory, improper, sham, redundant, or legally insufficient on their face. Other defenses merely reassert legal arguments that have already been considered and rejected by this Court at the demurrer stage.” (Notice of Motion, 1:25-27.)

23CV005472: BENNETT vs SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, et al. 10/28/2025 Hearing on Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses in Department 54

Legal Standard

A motion to strike is appropriate to strike out any irrelevant, false or improper matter asserted in any pleading and a court may strike out all or any party of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the law. (Code Civ. Pro. § 436 (a)-(c).) A motion to strike challenges portions of a cause of action that are substantively defective on the face of the complaint. (PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (Ibershof) (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1682-83; see also, Code Civ. Proc. §437.) A motion to strike is limited to the face of the challenged pleading or any matter of which the Court may take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437(a).)

The use of the motion to strike should be cautious and sparing and should not be considered a procedural “line item veto.” (PH II, Inc., supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at 1683.) To be sure, in ruling on a motion to strike, the court must read allegations of the subject pleading as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth. (See, e.g., Courtesy Ambulance Service v. Superior Court (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1504, 1519; Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 82, 91.)

Analysis

Preliminarily, none of the legal authority that Plaintiff cites in his “legal standard” section support a motion to strike affirmative defenses.[1] (See Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1217 [motion to compel production of documents]; Kapsimallis v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 667 [motion for judgment on the pleadings]; Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203 [jury instructions]; FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367 [motion for summary judgment]; Estate of Pieper (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 670 [judgment in probate court ordering removal of administrator and finding a deed to be void]; State Farm Mut.

Auto. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 721 [motion in limine to exclude evidence of advice of counsel defense]; Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531 [demurrer]; Crowley v. Katleman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 666 [general demurrer of a malicious prosecution cause of action sustained without leave to amend].

“It is axiomatic that cases are not authority for propositions not considered.” (People v. Gilbert (1969) 1 Cal.3d 475, 482, n. 7.)

1. “Many of Defendants’ Aff. Defs. Are Improperly Recycled Demurrer Grounds”

Plaintiff suggests that Defendants’ answer improperly “re-asserts” the Civil Code section 47, failure to state a claim, punitive damages barred, and Government Tort Claims Act affirmative defenses because the Court previously overruled co-defendants County of Sacramento, Sacramento County Jail, and Sgt. Lacey Nelson’s demurrer to the FAC. Plaintiff relies on Crowley v. Katleman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 666, 686 to support his argument that Defendants are improperly attempting to “relitigate a resolved issue.” The case is inapposite as it involved a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV005472: BENNETT vs SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, et al. 10/28/2025 Hearing on Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses in Department 54

general demurrer without leave to amend of a malicious prosecution action. It made no pronouncement that a motion to strike non-demurring defendants’ affirmative defenses is proper based on different defendants’ demurrer. Additionally, the grounds for demurrer differ from that of a motion to strike. (Code of Civ. Proc. §430.10 [grounds for demurrer] compare Code Civ. Proc. §436 [grounds for motion to strike].)

2. “Factually Unsupported and Legally Inapplicable”

Relying on Caldwell v. Montoya (1995) 10 Cal.4th 972 and Barner v. Leeds (2000) 24 Cal.4th 676, Plaintiff claims that the affirmative defenses based on Government Code immunities “should be stricken where the conduct alleged in the Second Amended Complaint falls outside the scope of immunity (e.g., malicious acts, perjury, fabrication, concealment, retaliation).” Again, Plaintiff cites to inapposite cases. Caldwell, supra, 10 Cal.4th 972 involved a demurrer, while Barner, supra, 24 Cal.4th 676 concerned a motion for summary judgment.

3. “Factually Empty and Procedurally Improper”

Plaintiff next argues that “dozens of claimed defenses are factually empty and procedurally improper” and “boilerplate defenses devoid of factual content, e.g., estoppel, waiver, consent, laches, statute of limitations, are insufficient.” (Motion, 8:18-20.) Plaintiff again relies on distinguishable cases. (Doe, supra, 42 Cal.4th 531 [demurrer]; FPI Development, Inc., supra, 231 Cal.App.3d 367 [motion for summary judgment].)

4. “Some ‘Defenses’ Are Not Affirmative Defenses At All”

Plaintiff continues that “several items listed as affirmative defenses are simply denials or assertions that negate elements of my claims, which I did substantiate. Regardless, statements do not constitute “new matter” and are not proper defenses under California law. (See Porter v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 125, 136.)” (Motion, 8:26-9:1.) Plaintiff’s reliance on Porter is misplaced because the case concerned a jury verdict in a criminal case. (See Porter, supra, 47 Cal.4th 125.)

5. “Judicial Economy and Clarity Demand Pruning of Defective Defenses”

Plaintiff claims that “retaining 50 scattershot defenses, many of them improper, duplicative, or legally baseless, clutters the litigation, complicates discovery, and prejudices my ability to efficiently prosecute my case. California courts have inherent authority to strike improper defenses, especially when they obstruct the orderly administration of justice. (See CCP § 436.)” (9:2-5.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 436 simply states that, “[t]he court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV005472: BENNETT vs SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, et al. 10/28/2025 Hearing on Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses in Department 54

(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.”

It does not allow a motion to strike based on a Court’s “inherent authority to strike improper defenses, especially when they obstruct the orderly administration of justice.”

6. “Improper Reservation of ‘Unknown’ Defenses Must Be Stricken”

Citing to Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial section 6:153, Plaintiff contends that “Defendants cannot reserve hypothetical defenses without factual or legal basis. This is improper under California pleading rules and creates prejudice.” (Motion, 9:7-9.)

Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial section 6:153 does not support Plaintiff’s argument. Rather, it states, “Comment: ‘Boilerplate’ or not, such [agency or employment] allegations may be necessary, particularly at the outset of a lawsuit. Before discovery, plaintiffs may be unable to allege facts establishing the agent’s authority. [See Barsegian v. Kessler & Kessler, supra, 215 CA4th at 451, 155 CR3d at 571 (citing text)] Keep in mind, however, that joining a defendant party without probable cause may expose the client to liability for malicious prosecution or sanctions under CCP § 128.7; see ¶ 9:1135 ff.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group, June 2025 Update), ¶ 6:153.)

Specific Affirmative Defenses

1. Comparative Fault of Others – legal insufficiency/lack of factual support is not a ground to move to strike.

2. Equitable Apportionment - legal insufficiency/lack of factual support is not a ground to move to strike.

3. Laches – Plaintiff relies on Miller v. Eisenhower Med. Ctr. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 614, 624 for the proposition that “[laches] applies only to equitable claims, not legal claims in tort, constitutional, or statutory law, all of which were timely filed.” (Motion, 11:2-3.) Miller does not state as such, in any event, Plaintiff seeks equitable relief by asking for “the finding of incompetence against Mr. Bennett to be found invalid and vacated.” (SAC, Prayer, ¶ 534E.) Plaintiff’s argument regarding the lack of factual merit or his factual dispute of the affirmative defense is not proper for a motion for strike.

4. Negligence of Others - legal insufficiency/lack of factual support is not a ground to move to strike.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV005472: BENNETT vs SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, et al. 10/28/2025 Hearing on Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses in Department 54

5. Failure to Mitigate - legal insufficiency/lack of factual support is not a ground to move to strike.

6. No Proximate or Legal - lack of factual support is not a ground to move to strike. Plaintiff’s reliance on Crowley, supra, 8 Cal.4th 666, 686 to support his argument that Defendants are improperly attempting to “relitigate a resolved issue” is misplaced.

7. CA Government Tort Claims Act – Plaintiff’s reliance on Crowley, supra, 8 Cal.4th 666, 686 to support his argument that Defendants are improperly attempting to “relitigate a resolved issue” is misplaced.

8. Failure to State Facts - Plaintiff’s reliance on Crowley, supra, 8 Cal.4th 666, 686 to support his argument that Defendants are improperly attempting to “relitigate a resolved issue” is misplaced.

9. Failure to State a Claim - Plaintiff’s reliance on Crowley, supra, 8 Cal.4th 666, 686 to support his argument that Defendants are improperly attempting to “relitigate a resolved issue” is misplaced.

10. Unclean Hands - lack of factual support is not a ground to move to strike. Plaintiff’s argument regarding the lack of factual merit or his factual dispute of the affirmative defense is not proper for a motion for strike.

11. Causation - Plaintiff’s reliance on Crowley, supra, 8 Cal.4th 666, 686 to support his argument that Defendants are improperly attempting to “relitigate a resolved issue” is misplaced. Plaintiff’s argument regarding the lack of factual merit or his factual dispute of the affirmative defense is not proper for a motion for strike.

12. Estoppel - lack of factual support is not a ground to move to strike. Plaintiff’s argument regarding the lack of factual merit or his factual dispute of the affirmative defense is not proper for a motion for strike.

13. Sole Negligence - legal insufficiency/lack of factual support is not a ground to move to strike. Plaintiff’s argument regarding the lack of factual merit or his factual dispute of the affirmative defense is not proper for a motion for strike.

14. Comparative Negligence of Plaintiff - legal insufficiency/lack of factual support is not a ground to move to strike. Plaintiff’s argument regarding the lack of factual merit or his factual dispute of the affirmative defense is not proper for a motion for strike.

15. No Breach of Duty - Plaintiff’s reliance on Crowley, supra, 8 Cal.4th 666, 686 to support his argument that Defendants are improperly attempting to “relitigate a resolved issue” is

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV005472: BENNETT vs SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, et al. 10/28/2025 Hearing on Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses in Department 54

misplaced.

16. Intervening–Superseding Cause - legal insufficiency/lack of factual support is not a ground to move to strike. Plaintiff’s argument regarding the lack of factual merit or his factual dispute of the affirmative defense is not proper for a motion for strike.

17. Truth as Absolute Defense - legal insufficiency/lack of factual support is not a ground to move to strike. Plaintiff’s argument regarding the lack of factual merit or his factual dispute of the affirmative defense is not proper for a motion for strike. Plaintiff’s reliance on Crowley, supra, 8 Cal.4th 666, 686 to support his argument that Defendants are improperly attempting to “relitigate a resolved issue” is misplaced.

18. Civil Code § 47(b) - legal insufficiency is not a ground to move to strike. Plaintiff’s reliance on Crowley, supra, 8 Cal.4th 666, 686 to support his argument that Defendants are improperly attempting to “relitigate a resolved issue” is misplaced.

19. Lack of Foreseeable Risk – “not a true affirmative defense” Is not a ground to move to strike. Plaintiff’s reliance on Barnes v. AT&T (N.D. Cal. 2009) 718 F.Supp.2d 1167, 1173 is misplaced because it concerns federal pleading standards.

20. Criminal Act of Third Party - legal insufficiency/lack of factual support is not a ground to move to strike.

21. Actual or Constructive Notice or Knowledge - legal insufficiency/lack of factual support is not a ground to move to strike. Plaintiff’s argument regarding the lack of factual merit or his factual dispute of the affirmative defense is not proper for a motion for strike.

22. Good Faith - legal insufficiency/lack of factual support is not a ground to move to strike. Plaintiff’s argument regarding the lack of factual merit or his factual dispute of the affirmative defense is not proper for a motion for strike.

23. Objectively Reasonable- legal insufficiency/lack of factual support is not a ground to move to strike.

24. Reliance on Good Conduct of Others - legal insufficiency/lack of factual support is not a ground to move to strike. Plaintiff’s argument regarding the lack of factual merit or his factual dispute of the affirmative defense is not proper for a motion for strike.

25. Civil Code § 3333.2 – Plaintiff claims that Civil Code § 3333.2 does not apply. The Court disagrees. The SAC asserts a medical negligence, based, in part, on the nurses offering him a clean ileal pouch that was too small. (SAC, ¶ 408.) Plaintiff offers no legal authority to support his argument.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV005472: BENNETT vs SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, et al. 10/28/2025 Hearing on Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses in Department 54

26. Waiver - legal insufficiency/lack of factual support is not a ground to move to strike. Plaintiff’s argument regarding the lack of factual merit or his factual dispute of the affirmative defense is not proper for a motion for strike.

27. Res Judicata/ Collateral Estoppel - legal insufficiency/lack of factual support is not a ground to move to strike. Plaintiff’s argument regarding the lack of factual merit or his factual dispute of the affirmative defense is not proper for a motion for strike. Additionally, as Defendants note, Plaintiff’s prays seeks to have the Court invalidate and vacate the criminal court’s “finding of incompetence against Mr. Bennett.” (SAC, Prayer, ¶ 534E.)

28. Civil Code § 3294 - Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159 does not stand for the proposition that failure to state sufficient facts for punitive damages may not be asserted as an affirmative defense. Plaintiff’s argument regarding the lack of factual merit or his factual dispute of the affirmative defense is not proper for a motion for strike.

29. Failure to Comply with Code Civil Procedure § 364 - Plaintiff claims that Code Civil Procedure § 364 does not apply. The Court disagrees. The SAC asserts a medical negligence, based, in part, on the nurses offering him a clean ileal pouch that was too small. (SAC, ¶ 408.) Plaintiff offers no legal authority to support his argument. Plaintiff’s argument regarding the lack of factual merit or his factual dispute of the affirmative defense is not proper for a motion for strike.

30. Prejudgment Interest Exemption (Civil Code §3291) – This section expressly states that it “shall not apply to a public entity, or to a public employee for an act or omission within the scope of employment, and neither the public entity nor the public employee shall be liable, directly or indirectly, to any person for any interest imposed by this section.” As a result, this section provides Defendants with an exemption for prejudgment interest.

31. Punitive Damages – Eighth Amendment - legal insufficiency/lack of factual support is not a ground to move to strike. Plaintiff’s argument regarding the lack of factual merit or his factual dispute of the affirmative defense is not proper for a motion for strike.

32. Punitive Damages-14th Amendment Procedural Due Process - legal insufficiency/lack of factual support is not a ground to move to strike. Plaintiff’s argument regarding the lack of factual merit or his factual dispute of the affirmative defense is not proper for a motion for strike.

33. No Thirty-Third affirmative defense is asserted.

34. Failure to Join All Parties - legal insufficiency/lack of factual support is not a ground to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV005472: BENNETT vs SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, et al. 10/28/2025 Hearing on Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses in Department 54

move to strike. Plaintiff’s argument regarding the lack of factual merit or his factual dispute of the affirmative defense is not proper for a motion for strike.

35. Government Code § 815 – No Liability Without Statutory Basis - Plaintiff’s reliance on Crowley, supra, 8 Cal.4th 666, 686 to support his argument that Defendants are improperly attempting to “relitigate a resolved issue” is misplaced. Plaintiff’s argument regarding the lack of factual merit or his factual dispute of the affirmative defense is not proper for a motion for strike.

36. Government Code § 815.2(b) - Plaintiff’s reliance on Crowley, supra, 8 Cal.4th 666, 686 to support his argument that Defendants are improperly attempting to “relitigate a resolved issue” is misplaced. Plaintiff’s argument regarding the lack of factual merit or his factual dispute of the affirmative defense is not proper for a motion for strike.

37. Government Code § 815.4 - legal insufficiency/lack of factual support is not a ground to move to strike. Plaintiff’s reliance on Crowley, supra, 8 Cal.4th 666, 686 to support his argument that Defendants are improperly attempting to “relitigate a resolved issue” is misplaced.

38. Government Code § 815.6 - legal insufficiency/lack of factual support is not a ground to move to strike. Plaintiff’s reliance on Crowley, supra, 8 Cal.4th 666, 686 to support his argument that Defendants are improperly attempting to “relitigate a resolved issue” is misplaced.

39. Reasonable Diligence - legal insufficiency/lack of factual support is not a ground to move to strike. Plaintiff’s reliance on Crowley, supra, 8 Cal.4th 666, 686 to support his argument that Defendants are improperly attempting to “relitigate a resolved issue” is misplaced.

40. Gov. Code § 818 - legal insufficiency/lack of factual support is not a ground to move to strike. Plaintiff’s argument regarding the lack of factual merit or his factual dispute of the affirmative defense is not proper for a motion for strike.

41. Gov. Code §§ 818.8 and 822.2 - legal insufficiency/lack of factual support is not a ground to move to strike. Plaintiff’s argument regarding the lack of factual merit or his factual dispute of the affirmative defense is not proper for a motion for strike.

42. Gov. Code §§ 815.2(b) and 820.2 - Plaintiff’s reliance on Crowley, supra, 8 Cal.4th 666, 686 to support his argument that Defendants are improperly attempting to “relitigate a resolved issue” is misplaced. Plaintiff’s argument regarding the lack of factual merit or his factual dispute of the affirmative defense is not proper for a motion for strike.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV005472: BENNETT vs SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, et al. 10/28/2025 Hearing on Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses in Department 54

43. Government Code § 820.4 - Plaintiff’s reliance on Crowley, supra, 8 Cal.4th 666, 686 to support his argument that Defendants are improperly attempting to “relitigate a resolved issue” is misplaced. Plaintiff’s argument regarding the lack of factual merit or his factual dispute of the affirmative defense is not proper for a motion for strike.

44. Government Code § 820.6 - Plaintiff’s argument regarding the lack of factual merit or his factual dispute of the affirmative defense is not proper for a motion for strike.

45. Government Code § 820.8 - Plaintiff’s argument regarding the lack of factual merit or his factual dispute of the affirmative defense is not proper for a motion for strike.

46. Government Code § 844.6 - legal insufficiency/lack of factual support is not a ground to move to strike. Plaintiff’s argument regarding the lack of factual merit or his factual dispute of the affirmative defense is not proper for a motion for strike.

47. Government Code § 845.2 - Plaintiff’s argument regarding the lack of factual merit or his factual dispute of the affirmative defense is not proper for a motion for strike.

48. Government Code § 845.6 - Plaintiff’s argument regarding the lack of factual merit or his factual dispute of the affirmative defense is not proper for a motion for strike.

49. Government Code § 985 et seq. – legal insufficiency/lack of factual support is not a ground to move to strike.

50. Government Code § 810–996.6 - legal insufficiency/lack of factual support is not a ground to move to strike.

51. Reservation of Additional Defenses – As stated above, Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial section 6:153 does not support Plaintiff’s argument.

Given the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to strike is DENIED in its entirety.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

Moving party has indicated the incorrect address in its notice of motion. The correct address for Department 54 of the Sacramento County Superior Court is 813 6th Street, Sacramento California 95814. Moving party shall notify responding party(ies) immediately.

[1] Plaintiff also improperly cites to unpublished, non-binding cases.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV005472: BENNETT vs SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, et al. 10/28/2025 Hearing on Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses in Department 54

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you 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 and advise opposing counsel. 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.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

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 Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

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 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV005472: BENNETT vs SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, et al. 10/28/2025 Hearing on Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses in Department 54

will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.