| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT
SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC25623859 - October 30, 2025 Hearing date: October 30, 2025 Case number: CGC25623859 Case title: FAF LIQUIDATION SEVICES, LLC VS. DOMINIC HOLLAND ET AL Case Number: | | CGC25623859 | Case Title: | | FAF LIQUIDATION SEVICES, LLC VS. DOMINIC HOLLAND ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-10-30 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT | Rulings: | | On the Law and Motion/Discovery calendar for October 30, 2025, line 10. DEFENDANTS DOMINIC HOLLAND, BRIAN SUGAR, ROBERT MITCHELL'S MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT.
Defendants Dominic Holland, Brian Sugar, and Robert Mitchell's motion to strike paragraphs 22, 23, 35, and 36 on the basis of the three-year statute of limitations is denied. A party may move to strike under Code of Civil Procedure, 436 "any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading" or "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." "In the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties." (Code Civ. Proc., 452.)
Paragraphs 22 and 23 concern a contract with Morgan Stanley that, although formed outside of the limitations period, led to a payment to Morgan Stanley within the limitations period that plaintiff FAF Liquidation Services, LLC contends breached the duty of care. As discussed in the companion order on demurrer, the payment itself is actionable. Paragraphs 22 and 23 provide context for the payment.
Paragraphs 35 and 36 are undated and the court cannot presume the conduct described in them falls outside the limitations period. Indeed, FAF alleges that the boxing matches "although also described in a 2021 newspaper article, occurred at various points in time throughout Fast AF's lifetime." (Compl., para 36.) In any event, conduct occurring outside the limitations period can provide context for timely allegations, and the court is unpersuaded that the allegations are irrelevant, false or improper.
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.
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?”
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) | |