Motion to Strike Defendants' Answers to Plaintiff's Verified First Amended Complaint
"additional" responsive documents, which is not the same as saying no responsive documents exist. (Alfaro Decl., Ex. 5, p. 172 of pdf.)
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion as to RFP Number 10, and GRANTS it as to RFP Numbers 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11-16, 19-21, 23, 28-29, and 33.
The Court also agrees that Pelayo's refusal to produce documents from Plaintiff's own treatment records for RFP Numbers 2, 3, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 34 is improper because Plaintiff put these documents at issue by filing this lawsuit. (See Evid. Code, Sec. 1016, subd. (a) ["There is no privilege under this article as to a communication relevant to an issue concerning the mental or emotional condition of the patient if such issue has been tendered by: (a) The patient"]; In re Lifschutz (1970) 2 Cal.3d 415, 438 ["no constitutional right enables the psychotherapist to assert an absolute privilege concerning all psychotherapeutic communications"].)
The Court agrees that any privacy concerns are now mooted by the parties' stipulated protective order. (Stipulation and Order (6/26/26).)
The Court further agrees that any privacy objections were waived by the time Pelayo responded. (See Alfaro Decl., P.P. 4-6; Minute Order (4/28/26); Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2031.300, subd. (a).)
The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion as to RFP Numbers 2, 3, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 34.
Regarding RFP Numbers 35 and 36, the Court finds that Pelayo's response does not clearly indicate that there are no other documents responsive to these requests. If Pelayo has offer letters, agreements, invoices, correspondence or other records showing that Pelayo was affiliated with BetterHelp during the treatment period of Plaintiff, then such documents must be produced. Similarly if Pelayo has documents showing the information that BetterHelp posted on its website regarding Pelayo, then those documents must also be produced. The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion as to RFP Numbers 35 and 36.
With respect to RFP Number 17, the request simply asks Pelayo to provide a copy of her resume; it does not ask Pelayo to provide a copy of her resume that she originally submitted to Teladoc. (Alfaro Decl., Ex. 5, p. 176 of pdf.) The Court finds Pelayo's response to this request adequate and therefore DENIES the Motion as to RFP Number 17.
Notwithstanding the deficiencies of Pelayo's responses, the Court finds the Pelayo's responses generally responsive enough such that the imposition of monetary sanctions would be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2031.310, subd. (h).)
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?”
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Leticia Miramontes Pelayo to Provide Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents Set One and Request for Sanctions Against Defendant. The Court DENIES the Motion as to RFP Numbers 10 and 17. The Court GRANTS the Motion as to RFP Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33, 34, 35 and 36. Defendant Pelayo must provide further verified code-compliant responses without objection and produce any additional responsive documents within 30 calendar days of the Court's order. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for monetary sanctions. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court's ruling within five calendar days of this order.
Case Number: 25PSCV03144 Hearing Date: August 17, 2026 Dept: 6 CASE NAME: Hortencia Diaz Ruiz
v. Irene Miranda Diaz, et al. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Answers to Plaintiff's Verified First Amended Complaint TENTATIVE RULING
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Answers to Plaintiff's Verified First Amended Complaint. The Court hereby STRIKES Defendant Irene Miranda Diaz's Answer to the First Amended Complaint and ORDERS Defendant Irene Miranda Diaz to file a verified answer within ten calendar days of the Court's order. The Court hereby STRIKES Defendant Underwood Law Firm, P.C.'s Answer to the First Amended Complaint and ORDERS Defendant Underwood Law Firm, P.C. to file a verified code compliant answer within ten calendar days of the Court's order. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court's ruling within five calendar days of this order.
BACKGROUND
This is a real property dispute. On August 29, 2025, plaintiff Hortencia Diaz Ruiz (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Irene Miranda Diaz, John Doe, and Does 1 through 100, alleging causes of action for quiet title, breach of oral contract, conversion, and declaratory relief.
On January 12, 2026, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) against defendants Irene Miranda Diaz (Irene), [1] Gabriel Contreras (Contreras), Underwood Law Firm, P.C. (Underwood) (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 through 10, alleging causes of action for quiet title, breach of oral contract, conversion, intentional misrepresentation, declaratory relief, financial elder abuse, and cancellation of instrument.
On May 12, 2026, the Court sustained Defendants Underwood and Irene's demurrers to the FAC's Fifth Cause of Action for declaratory relief without leave to amend. On May 21, 2026, Underwood answered the FAC. On May 27, 2026, Irene answered the FAC. On June 16, 2026, Plaintiff moved to Underwood's and Irene's respective Answers to the FAC. On August 4, 2026, Underwood and Irene opposed the Motion. On August 11, 2026, Plaintiff replied to Underwood's and Irene's Opposition.
LEGAL STANDARD
"Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof, but this time limitation shall not apply to motions specified in subdivision (e) ." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 435, subd. (b)(2).)
"The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms 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." (Id., Sec. 436.)
DISCUSSION
Meet and Confer
The Court finds Plaintiff's efforts to meet and confer by telephone before filing this Motion to Strike sufficient. (Rodriguez Decl., P. 10; Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 435.5, subd. (a).)
Unverified Answers
When the complaint is verified, the answer shall be verified. In all cases of a verification of a pleading, the affidavit of the party shall state that the same is true of his own knowledge, except as to the matters which are therein stated on his or her information or belief, and as to those matters that he or she believes it to be true; and where a pleading is verified, it shall be by the affidavit of a party, unless the parties are absent from the county where the attorney has his or her office, or from some cause unable to verify it, or the facts are within the knowledge of his or her attorney or other person verifying the same... When a corporation is a party, the verification may be made by any officer thereof. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 446, subd. (a).)
Plaintiff seeks to strike Irene's and Underwood's Answers to the FAC on the grounds that they are not verified per Code of Civil Procedure section 446. In opposition, Irene and Underwood do not dispute that their respective Answers are unverified, but instead contend that the Court should deny the Motion because it is untimely based on Plaintiff having filed this Motion more than 10 days after the Answers were filed and served, even accounting for the two court-day electronic service extension.
The Court finds Plaintiff's Motion persuasive. While Irene and Underwood are correct that Plaintiff's Motion is untimely, the Court retains discretion to consider a late-filed motion to strike. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 436 [court may strike pleadings upon motion "or at any time in its discretion"]; CPF Agency Corp. v. R&S Towing (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1014, 1020-1021 [court has discretion to consider a late-filed motion to strike].)
Irene and Underwood have also not shown any prejudice caused by the delay. (Amacorp Indus. Leasing Co. v. Robert C. Young Assocs., Inc. (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 724, 730 ["recent California cases upholding a motion to strike for failure to timely file all involve aggravated circumstances," such as "frivolous and sham demurrers" or "a purposely dilatory defendant"].) The Court therefore exercises its discretion to consider Plaintiff's Motion to Strike.
The Answers are not verified and therefore fail to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, subdivision (a). (Answer (5/21/26) [Underwood]; Answer (5/27/26) [Irene].) Irene and Underwood do not dispute that their Answers are unverified and therefore noncompliant. (See generally, Opp.; see D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4 [where nonmoving party fails to oppose a ground for a motion, "it is assumed that [nonmoving party] concedes" that ground].)
Accordingly, Irene's and Underwood's Answers are subject to being stricken. (Zavala v. Bd. of Trs. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1755, 1761 [proper procedure for attacking unverified pleading is a motion to strike].) Furthermore, Underwood's Answer is a general denial and does not contain a denial of the allegations of the complaint. Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the Motion to strike the answers.
Plaintiff also requests attorney's fees and costs incurred in filing this motion. However, Plaintiff does not cite any statutory basis for awarding attorney's fees. None of the statutes cited as grounds for the motion to strike provide for an award of attorney's fees or costs. Thus, the Court DENIES the request for attorney's fees and costs.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Answers to Plaintiff's Verified First Amended Complaint. The Court hereby STRIKES Defendant Irene Miranda Diaz's Answer to the First Amended Complaint and ORDERS Defendant Irene Miranda Diaz to file a verified answer within ten calendar days of the Court's order. The Court hereby STRIKES Defendant Underwood Law Firm, P.C.'s Answer to the First Amended Complaint and ORDERS Defendant Underwood Law Firm, P.C. to file a verified code compliant answer within ten calendar days of the Court's order. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court's ruling within five calendar days of this order.
[1] The Court refers to Irene by her first name only to avoid confusion. No disrespect is intended.
Case Number: 26PSCV00389 Hearing Date: August 17, 2026 Dept: 6 Plaintiff Axel Gustavo Magana Coss' Request for Entry of Default Judgment Defendants: Brandon Ray Reed and Karina Reed Ballesteros TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff's request for entry of default judgment is DENIED. The Court will discuss with Plaintiff at the hearing whether Plaintiff intends to amend the Complaint to resolve the pleading defects identified herein.
BACKGROUND
This is a breach of contract case. February 3, 2026, plaintiff Axel Gustavo Magana Coss (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Brandon Ray Reed, Karina Reed Ballesteros (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 to 10, alleging the sole cause of action for breach of contract. On June 2, 2026, default was entered against Defendants. On June 22, 2026,