MR. JEFFERY MARSHALL vs. SHERRI GRIJALVA; ET AL.

Case No. CU24-06535

Motion by Defendants to Strike Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint

C.C.P. §436(a) authorizes the court to "[s]trike out any irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading" on a noticed motion.

C.C.P. §436(b) authorizes the court to “[s]trike out 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.”

A motion to strike thus can be filed to strike an entire pleading, or just parts of it, the latter like a scalpel to remove specific paragraphs, sentences, phrases or words. 1 Edmon & Karnow [Weil & Brown], Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2025) §7:156, p. 77 [“a motion to strike can be used to attack . . . even single words or phrases”].

If filed to strike just parts of a complaint, CRC 3.1322(a) requires a motion to strike a part of a complaint to “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”.

Defendants did not identify any portions of Plaintiff’s first amended complaint as intended targets of their motion to strike. Instead, they sought to strike the entirety of the first amended complaint.

Motions to strike the entirety of a pleading are typically filed against a complaint filed late, missing a necessary signature or certification, or without having obtained necessary leave of court. 1 Edmon & Karnow [Weil & Brown], Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2025) §7:174, pp. 80-81.

Defendants argued that the entire first amended complaint fails to constitute “a statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language”, as required by C.C.P. §425.10(a)(1).

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is anything but concise. However, it does contain in clear language allegations that Plaintiff never agreed to pay 27.2% annual interest on the financed part of the vehicle purchase, and that his signature on the contract calling for such interest was forged. The court has already found on the demurrer that this states a viable cause of action (not for “fraud”, as identified in the first amended complaint, but for forgery).

While unnecessary allegations can be stricken from a complaint, “matter that is essential to a cause of action should not be struck and it is error to do so.” Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Center (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1281