Stars Bay Area, Inc. v. Panthers Capital, LLC

TENTATIVE RULINGS

DEPARTMENT N17

Judge Craig L. Griffin

Date: August 17, 2026 Time: 2:00 PM

If you are submitting to the tentative, please call the Clerk at (657) 622-5617.

Appearances may be IN PERSON or through ZOOM. If appearing by ZOOM, go to https://www.occourts.org/media-relations/civil.html and click on the yellow box that reads: “CLICK HERE TO APPEAR FOR THE ONLINE CHECK-IN/ZOOM PILOT PROGRAM.” Call the department with any questions.

COURT REPORTERS: Official Court Reporters (i.e. Court Reporters employed by the Court) are NOT typically provided for law and motion matters in this department. If a party desires a record of a law and motion proceeding, it will be the party’s responsibility to provide a court reporter. Parties must comply with the Court’s policy on the use of privately retained court reporters which can be found at:

• Civil Court Reporter Pooling; and

• For additional information, please see the Court’s website at Court Reporter Interpreter Services for additional information regarding the availability of Court Reporters.

PUBLIC ACCESS: The public may attend the ZOOM session by telephone. Call the department for a call-in number.

# 1 Stassi v. Cont. to 8/24 Indelicato 2 Stars Bay Area, Before the Court is a motion to strike answer filed by plaintiffs Stars Inc. v. Bay Area, Inc., Mark Ramos and Rosa Gonzalez (Plaintiffs) against Panthers defendant Panthers Capital, LLC (Defendant). For the reasons set Capital, LLC forth below, the motion is DENIED in its entirety.

“The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper . . . [s]trike 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.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 436, subd. (b).) The statute authorizes “the striking of a pleading due to improprieties in its form or in the procedures pursuant to which it was filed.” (Ferraro v. Camarlinghi (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 509, 528.)

To the extent Plaintiffs seek to strike the unverified answer filed on January 7, 2026, Plaintiffs’ motion is untimely because it was brought more than 10 days after service of the answer. (See Code of Civ. Proc. § 435, subd. (b)(1) and § 430.40, subd. (b); see also Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The

Rutter Group 2026) ¶ 7:166.1, citing Code of Civ. Proc. § 435, subd. (b) and Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1322(b).)

As to the verified answer filed on February 20, 2026, it is a timely amendment to the original answer. (Jenssen v. R.K.O. Studios (1937) 20 Cal.App.2d 705, 707-708 [the failure to verify an answer in response to a verified complaint “amounted to no more than a defect in pleading” which is not jurisdictional]; Natkin v. California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 997, 1011- 1012 [failing to verify an answer is a defect curable by amendment].) “A party may amend its pleading once without leave of court at any time before the answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed . . ..” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 472, subd. (a).) Here, Defendant filed the verified answer before Plaintiffs filed the motion to strike and thus filed the amended pleading as a matter of right.

Even if the verified answer is not construed as an amendment (which it is), the Court exercises its discretion to deny the motion to strike. There is no prejudice to Plaintiff as the case is still in the pleading stages and no trial date has been set, Defendant filed a verified answer before any default or judgment has been entered, Defendant filed a cross-complaint that raises the same issues in the verified answer, and striking the answer will only delay the case.

The Court also denies Plaintiff’s alternative request for judgment on the pleadings. The cases upon which Plaintiffs rely are over 100 years old, and judgment on the pleadings granted where the answer was unverified. (See e.g., Consolidated Music Co. v. Morrison (1916) 30 Cal.App.303; Stockton Lumber Co. v. Blodget (1906) 3 Cal.App. 94; Hearst v. Hart (1925) 128 Cal.327; McCullough v. Clark (1871) 41 Cal. 298.) Here, Plaintiffs did not timely move to strike the unverified answer and the subsequent verified answer is a timely amendment.

The motion is therefore DENIED in its entirety.

Counsel for Defendant shall give notice of this ruling. 3 Vivian v. Before the Court is a motion for sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil MHCC, Inc. Procedure section 128.5 filed by plaintiffs Scott Vivian and Pacific Construction Management International, LLC (Plaintiffs) against defendant Ohio Security Insurance Company (Defendant). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5, subd. (a) provides that: “[a] trial court may order a party, the party’s attorney, or both, to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by another party as a result of actions or tactics, made in bad faith, that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.” Frivolous means either 1) “totally and completely without merit” or 2) “for the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 128.5, subd. (b)(2).) Section 128.5 requires the responding party acted in “subjective bad faith,” that is, personally intended to use improper tactics. (In re Marriage of Sahafzadeh- Taeb & Taeb (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 124, 134.) A motion is