Motion to Strike
9:01 25CV481133 Shaleen Development Company, Hearing: Order of Examination 4 LLLP v. On February 13, 2026, the Court Ordered Kushal Sharma Defendant Judgment Debtor Kushal Sharma to appear personally in Department 16 to give information regarding a money judgment against him on May 27, 2026 at 9:01 AM in Department 16 (the “Order of Examination”).
Accordingly, Judgment Debtor Kushal Sharma is Ordered to appear in person on May 27, 2026, at 9:01 AM in Department 16 for this Examination.
If Judgment Debtor Kushal Sharma does not appear as Ordered on May 27, 2026 at 9:01 AM in Department 16 then a Civil Bench Warrant will issue against Kushal Sharma with bail set at $2,000.00. Specifically, if Judgment Debtor Kushal Sharma does not appear then Plaintiff Judgment Creditor Shaleen Development Company, LLLP is to prepare and file a Civil Bench Warrant against Kushal Sharma with bail set at $2,000.00 using Form CW-9002 that will be given to Plaintiff by the D16 Courtroom Clerk.
SO ORDERED. 9:01 5
9:00 21CV389678 Isaac A. Anjejo Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike 1 v. Defendant’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Daniel Nelson, et al. Complaint
See Line 1 below for complete tentative ruling. After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal order.
Line 1 Case Name: Isaac A. Anjejo v. Daniel Nelson, et al.
Case No.: 21CV389678 Plaintiff Isaac A. Anjejo (“Plaintiff”) moves to strike the Answer of Defendant Daniel Nelson (“Defendant”) to Plaintiff’s Complaint under C.C.P. Sections 435 and 436. Notice of Motion (the “Motion”) at 2:5-7 (filed: Jan. 20, 2026). Plaintiff also requests permission to file a Request for Entry of Default. Id. at 2:7-8.
The Motion came on for hearing on May 27, 2026, at 9:00 AM in Department 16. After reviewing all the papers and the record, and giving counsel for all parties the full and fair opportunity to be heard, the Court finds and rules as follows.
The Motion fails for three reasons.
First, it is extraordinarily untimely. The plain text of Section 435(b) states that “[a]ny party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may file and serve a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof[.]” C.C.P. § 435(b) (emphasis added). A plaintiff has ten days after serve of an answer to file a demurrer to the answer. C.C.P. § 430.40(b). Therefore, “because a motion to strike and a demurrer must be brought at the same time, a motion to strike must be filed within 10 days after service of the answer.”
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?”
California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial at ¶ 7.166.1 (The Rutter Group, 2023)(citing C.C.P. § 435(b) & C.R.C. 3.122(b)). Here, the Answer was served on Plaintiff’s counsel on July 13, 2022. Answer & attached Proof of Service (filed: July 13, 2022). So to be timely, this Motion to Strike needed to be filed within 10 days of July 13, 2022. But it was filed on January 20, 2026—about 3 and a half years too late.
Second, the only ground asserted in this Motion brought under Sections 435 and 436—that “Defendant Daniel Nelson has failed to fully participate in the litigation process” (Motion at 3:27)—is not a ground set forth in the text of Sections 435 and 436, which instead states that a Motion to strike lies to:
• To strike any “irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted into any pleading”; or • To strike any pleading or part thereof “not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.”
C.C.P. § 436 (a) & (b). As the Code of Civil Procedure is a creature of statute created by the Legislature, a party to a civil action such as Plaintiff is not a liberty to create a new ground of a Section of the Code of Civil Procedure and then seek relief on that newfangled ground.
Third, keeping in mind the governing standard—that for a Motion to Strike to be granted “the grounds must appear on the face of the pleading under attack, or from matter which the Court may judicially notice (e.g., the court’s own files or records)” California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial at ¶ 7.168 (The Rutter Group, 2023)(citing C.C.P. § 437 & CPF Agency Corp. v. R&S Towing Service (2005) 132 Cal. App. 4th 1014, 1032)—the Court has carefully reviewed the Answer and the court files of this case and rules that nothing in them shows any of the grounds of Section 436(a) or 436(b) have been violated here.
Plaintiff has identified no irrelevant, false, or improper matter in the Answer—and the Court finds none. Plaintiff has not shown how the answer is “not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court”—and the Court finds no such violation.1
Accordingly, for all these reasons, the Motion is DENIED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
Date: May 27, 2026 Hon. Vincent I. Parrett Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara
1 For instance, the Court has spent time carefully reviewing all the Minute Orders for the
past 4 years in this case and has found no instance where Defendant Daniel Nelson failed to appear at an Order to Show Cause hearing, nor any instance where Defendant Daneil Nelson violated an Order of this Court. If he were to do so in the future in this case, this Court at that time would not hesitate to strike his Answer. But until that happens, there is no ground for the Court to strike his Answer yet.
11