DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC24618415·sf·Civil·Employment / Harassment
Hearing 3 months agoGranted in part and denied in part.

KENNETH BLOCK VS. SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

MOTION TO STRIKE Amended COMPLAINT

Hearing date
May 18, 2026
Department
301
Judge
Prevailing
Mixed

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Strike rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffKENNETH BLOCK
DefendantSAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Ruling

Matter on the Law & Motion/Discovery Calendar for Monday, May 18, 2026, line 12, 2 - DEFENDANT SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT MOTION TO STRIKE 1ST Amended COMPLAINT

San Francisco Unified School District's motion to strike is granted in part and denied in part. Code of Civil Procedure Section 436 provides: "The court may, upon 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..." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 436.)

Matter in pleadings is not irrelevant or improper simply because it is not narrowly tethered to a cause of action. A party may plead facts for context. The court denies the motion to strike insofar as it seeks to strike allegations arising prior to the limitations period and allegations regarding age or sex harassment. (See Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 798, 802.)

The court grants the motion to strike insofar as the SAC names Asoni Cooks by full name, with leave to amend. Block may identify the student by first name and last initial. The court denies the motion to strike student Amari's name; this identifies the student by first name only. With respect to the district's claim that harassment by students is irrelevant, the court disagrees; the allegations provide context. The court's role on a motion to strike is not to edit the complaint.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. = (301/CVA) | |

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share