Vierra vs. Zaratzian

personal economic interest. (See, e.g., Weeks v. Baker & McKenzie (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1170.)

Here, Plaintiffs’ claims seek to recover only compensatory damages for injuries suffered by the individual plaintiffs. The FAC seeks no relief that would confer a significant benefit on the general public or a large class of persons.

The court DENIES the motion as to the following:

Remaining Challenged Allegations

To the extent Defendant State moves to strike the challenged allegations in paragraphs 6, 7, 18, 19, 21, and 22, Defendant State improperly attempts to invoke a procedural line-item veto.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 436 the court may, upon a motion made or at any time in its discretion, strike out “any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.” A motion to strike, however, is not “a procedural ‘line item veto’ for the civil defendant.” (PH II, Inc. v. Superior Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1683.)

In sum: The court STRIKES the following from the FAC: Paragraph 88 and Prayer for Relief at Paragraphs C and D. The motion is otherwise DENIED.

No later than 10 days from the date of hearing, Defendant State SHALL file and serve a responsive pleading to the remaining portions of the FAC.

Moving Defendant to give notice.

13 Vierra vs. Zaratzian Demurrer Motion to Strike

OFF CALENDAR as MOOT. Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on 7/2/26, well before their opposing papers

were due. Section 472 of the Code of Civil Procedure grants a plaintiff the right to file an amended complaint in response to a demurrer and/or motion to strike directed at the original complaint, if filed and served by the date for filing an opposition brief.

As such, the filing of the amended complaint renders both the demurrer and the motion to strike moot since the original Complaint has been superseded and the FAC is now the operative pleading. (See, e.g., State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Superior Court (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1131 [“Because there is but one complaint in a civil action [citation], the filing of an amended complaint moots a motion directed to a prior complaint.”]; JKC3H8 v. Colton (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 468, 477 [“the filing of an amended complaint renders moot a demurrer to the original complaint”].)

Plaintiffs to give notice.

14 Mamola vs. Shen Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Joinder

The court DENIES Defendants LIHUA SHEN and JUN WANG’S motion for judgment on the pleadings and DENIES the joinder filed by Defendants HOME SERVICE, INC dba SPECTRUM REALTY; KAI YAN KUANG (Doe 1); and LAN GAO (Doe 2).

Defendants move pursuant to Section 438 of the Code of Civil Procedure, governing motions for judgment on the pleadings. Like a demurrer, a motion for judgment ton the pleadings attacks defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that may be judicially noticed. (Alameda County Waste Management Authority v. Waste Connections US, Inc. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 1162, 1173- 1174.)

As explained below, like a demurrer, a motion for judgment on the pleadings should not be filed late in a case. Here, trial is days away, and Defendants’ deadline to

14