Joshua Grekin v. Good News Only LLC, et al.

as deficient. Thus, the present motions to compel further responses and deem RFAs admitted are rendered moot.

However, sanctions are still appropriate. Sanctions may be awarded where a party unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel further responses, provided that the party does so without substantial justification. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 2030.300, 2031.310.) Here, while Plaintiffs' further responses rendered the present motions moot, they do not constitute substantial justification for opposing Defendant's motions. Indeed, the responses indicate that the underlying motions were properly brought. Further, sanctions with respect to a motion to deem RFAs admitted are mandatory even if responses are provided before the hearing.

Counsel testifies to an hourly rate of $400, which the Court credits. (Girgis Decl. P. 10.) Counsel alleges 2 hours spent meeting and conferring and preparing a brief, 2 hours spent reviewing the opposition and preparing a reply, and 2 hours spent appearing at the hearing with respect to each motion. (Ibid.) Counsel also alleges $100 in filing fees. (Ibid.) The Court finds these estimates unreasonable, given the duplicative nature of the motions and Defendant's lack of any reply. Instead, the Court credits 2 hours spent meeting and conferring regarding all motions, 2 hours preparing all briefs, 1 hour spent appearing at the hearing, and $100 in filing fees. Accordingly, the Court awards Defendant total sanctions in the amount of $2,100 ([$400 per hour] x [5 hours] + [$100 filing fees] = $2,100).

C.

Conclusion

The Court grants Defendant's motions in part. Plaintiffs need not provide further responses and RFAs are not deemed admitted. Defendants are awarded $2,100 in sanctions, to be paid by Plaintiffs' counsel within 30 days.

TO STRIKE

The Court tenders the following tentative decision in the matter Joshua Grekin v. Good News Only LLC, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court case number 25STCV26071, set for hearing on September 2, 2026. Joshua Grekin (Plaintiff) moves to strike Good News Only LLC's (Defendant) answer. Defendant has not filed an opposition. The motion is granted.

A.

Legal Standard

The Court may, upon a 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. (Id., Sec. 436, subd. (b).) The grounds for a motion to strike are that the pleading has irrelevant, false or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws. (Id., Sec. 436.)

The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Id., Sec. 437.) When a motion to strike is granted, the Court determines whether there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment. (Blank, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318). When a plaintiff "has pleaded the general set of facts upon which his cause of action is based," the court should give the plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint, since plaintiff should not "be deprived of his right to maintain his action on the ground that his pleadings were defective for lack of particulars." (Reed v.

Norman (1957) 152 Cal.App.2d 892, 900.)

B.

Discussion

Plaintiff moves to strike Defendant's answer on the grounds that at the time it was filed Defendant was a suspended corporation. The "powers, rights, and privileges" of a corporation may be suspended for failure to comply with certain tax obligations. (Rev. & Tax. Code, Sec. 23301.) This means a suspended corporation may not prosecute or defend an action in a California court. (Timberline, Inc. v. Jaisinghani (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1361, 1365.) If the corporation's status is discovered during litigation, Courts often allow for a short continuance so the corporation may seek reinstatement. (Id. at p. 1366.)

Here, Plaintiff notified Defendant that it was a suspended entity on December 8, 2025. (Rini Decl. P. 6.) The parties agreed to an extension of Plaintiff's motion to strike deadline so that Defendant could pursue reinstatement efforts. (Id. P. 7.) Defendant was still involved in these efforts as of February 20, 2026. (Id. P. 8.) Defendant filed the present answer on May 27, 2026. (Id. P. 11.) At that time, Defendant remained suspended. (Id. P. 14, Ex. D.) Thus, Defendant lacked the legal capacity to file its answer and it constitutes an improper matter properly stricken under Code of Civil Procedure section 436, subdivision (a). A continuance is not justified because Defendant was already aware of its suspended status for months and still chose to improperly file its answer. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to strike is granted.

Conclusion: The motion to strike is granted.

Case Number: 25STCV30967

Hearing Date: September 2, 2026

Dept: 400

DEMURRER WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE

The Court tenders the following tentative decision in the matter Maria Bravo v. Los Angeles General Medical Center, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court case number 25STCV30967, set for hearing on September 2, 2026. County of Los Angeles (Defendant) demurs to multiple causes of action contained within Maria Bravo's (Plaintiff) first amended complaint (FAC). Plaintiff opposes demurrer. Defendant's demurrer is overruled.

A.

Legal Standard

In reviewing the legal sufficiency of a complaint against a demurrer, a court will treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318 (Blank); C & H Foods Co. v. Hartford Ins. Co. (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 1055, 1062.) It is well settled that a "demurrer lies only for defects appearing on the face of the complaint[.]" (Stevens v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 594, 601.) "The rules by which the sufficiency of a