John Schacht v. Lorraine Morton, et al.

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. Judge of the Superior Court

Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles - West District Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 20 5 ROBERT AMES, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTOPHER DAYN WALTON, et al., Defendant s. | Case No.: 2 5 SMCV0 6313 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 [TENTATIVE] order RE: defendan t 'S DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT | This is a malicious prosecution case.

Plaintiff Robert Ames alleges that Defendant Christopher Walton wrote a letter to the City of Santa Monica, the Police Chief, the City Attorney and the Mayor, falsely accusing Plaintiff of " dangerous actions and crimes being comminuted upon [Walton's] friend and sexual partner Monique Eagle, as well as her 3- minor children." Walton supposedly demanded a "No Knock Arrest Warrant" be issued immediately against Plaintiff's home, claiming "This is a dangerous life threatening situation that requires immediate action." The letter was allegedly sent on September 12, 2022.

Plaintiff, who appears pro se, has filed two claims for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Complaint was filed on December 8, 2025. This hearing is on Defendant's demurrer to the complaint.

Defendant argues that the complaint is time barred because the applicable statute of limitations is two years; the allegedly false letter was sent on September 2, 2022; the limitations period therefore expired on September 2, 2024, yet the complaint was not filed until December 8, 2025 which is well after the limitations period. Defendant is appearing in pro se.

Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 430.41 require s that before the filing of a demurrer the moving party "shall meet and confer in person or by telephone" with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 430.41(a).) The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 430.41(a)(2).) Thereafter, the moving party shall file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 430.41(a)(3).)

Defendant has not filed any meet and confer declaration. Accordingly, the Court takes his demurrer off calendar. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 1, 2026 ___________________________ Edward B. Moreton, Jr. Judge of the Superior Court Case Number: 26SMCV00891 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Dept: 205 Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles - West District Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 20 5 JOHN SCHACHT, Plaintiff, v. LORRAINE MORTON, et al., Defendant s. | Case No.: 2 6 SMCV0 0891 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 [TENTATIVE] order RE: defendant s ' motion to strike plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages | BACKGROUND This is a dog bite case.

Plaintiff John Schacht alleges that Defendants Lorraine and Danielle Morton allowed " their dog to be off of their premises, not under their control and without being lawfully restrained by a substantial chain or leash. " Plaintiff claims he was " injured by the attack of said dog owned by Defendants in which Plaintiff was at lawfully. " Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants " knew that their dog had attacked and bit Plaintiff before and possibly other people. "

Plaintiff's complaint alleges three claims for (1) strict liability, (2) negligence, and (3) violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code Sec. 53.06.2. Plaintiff seeks general, special and punitive damages. This hearing is on Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's punitive damages claim. Defendants argue that there are no facts alleged that would support a finding of malice, oppression or fraud, necessary to obtain punitive damages.

MEET AND CONFER Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 435.5 requires that before the filing of a motion to strike, the moving party " shall meet and confer in person or by telephone " with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to motion to strike for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the motion to strike. (C ode C iv. P roc. Sec. 435.5(a).) The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (C ode C iv. P roc. Sec.435.5(a)(2).) Thereafter, the moving party shall file and serve a declaration detailing its meet and confer efforts. (C ode C iv. P roc. Sec.435.5(a)(3).)

The Uber Defendant s submit the Declaration of Robert Shiri. While the declaration itself does not say that the parties met and conferred in person or by telephone, the exhibit attached to the declaration references a telephone call between counsel. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Defendant s have met their meet and confer obligations.

LEGAL STANDARD The court may, upon motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 436, subd. (a).) The court may also strike 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 Civ. Proc. Sec. 436, subd. (b).) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 437.)

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Vaccaro v. Kaiman (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 761, 768 ("When the defect which justifies striking a complaint is capable of cure, the court should allow leave to amend.").) The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)

DISCUSSION Defendants' motion to strike is procedurally defective. " A notice of¿motion to strike¿a portion of a pleading must¿quote in full¿the portions sought to be stricken except where the motion is to strike an entire paragraph, cause of action, count, or defense. " (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1322(a) .) Here, while the motion to strike references paragraph 32 of the Complaint, it does not quote in full the specific portions of paragraph 32 that the motion seeks to strike. ¿

Paragraph 32 of the Complaint states: " Plaintiff alleges that prior to December 2, 2025, Defendants, and each of them, knew of the dangerous dog's propensities to attack people and other animals in public but failed to properly secure or sequester the dangerous dog prior to Plaintiff' injuries as alleged herein. Defendants' failure to remove the dangerous dog or properly secure or sequester the dangerous dog which caused Plaintiff' injuries constituted a willful and deliberate failure to make Plaintiff and others safe from Defendants' dangerous dog and further constituted conscious disregard for the health and safety of Plaintiff and others. The conduct of Defendants, and each of them, was despicable, willful and wanton, and in violation of California Civil Code Sec.3294, entitling Plaintiff to exemplary and punitive damages. "

It is unclear if Defendants seek to strike the entire paragraph or only portions thereof. For example, the first two sentence s of paragraph 32 are similar to language in paragraph 31 which states: " Prior to the aforementioned incident, Defendants, and each of them knew that their dog had attacked and bit Plaintiff before and possibly other people. Defendants, and each of them, deliberately disregarded and ignored this dangerous condition of their vicious, aggressive and dangerous dog. " Yet Defendants are not seeking to strike paragraph 31, which suggests that they intend to only strike the last sentence of paragraph 32.

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant s' motion to strike without prejudice, for failing to comply with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1322(a) . IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 1, 2026 ___________________________ Edward B. Moreton, Jr. Judge of the Superior Court | Home -->)" -->