Case Number: BC683769 Hearing Date: May 31, 2018 Dept: 47

Andreas Kratky, et al. v. Downtown Prime LLC, et al.

MOTION TO STRIKE RE: COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Downtown Prime, LLC, Moses Babazadeh, David Baradarian, and Pedram Yadidsion

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiffs Andreas Kratky, Billie Austin, Jacqueline Darakjy, Juri Hwang, Christian Jigau, Jenna King, Brant Lavalla, Jose Lopez, Mata Moran and Daniel Rydh

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS

Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants have illegally converted an industrial unit to apartment units rented out to Plaintiffs.

Defendants Downtown Prime, LLC, Moses Babazadeh, David Baradarian, and Pedram Yadidsion move to strike[1] portions of the Complaint.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Downtown Prime, LLC, Moses Babazadeh, David Baradarian, and Pedram Yadidsion’s motion to strike portions of the Complaint at ¶¶ 1 – 5 and 23, ¶ 22:24-25, ¶ 25:21-25 and ¶ 34:10-12 is DENIED.

If no Answer has yet been filed, the Defendants are ordered to file an Answer to the Complaint within 20 days.

DISCUSSION:

Motion To Strike

CCP § 436(a) provides: “The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.”

Defendants’ request to strike ¶¶ 1 – 5 and 23, ¶ 22:24-25, ¶ 25:21-25 and ¶ 34:10-12 is DENIED. These allegations are relevant to give some context to the seriousness of the allegations and possible knowledge/intent of Defendants, as they apply to the claim for punitive damages. As such, in this context, the allegations at issue are not “irrelevant . . . or improper matter.” CCP § 436(a).[2]

Defendants are ordered to answer the Complaint within 20 days.

Plaintiff to give notice, unless waived.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 31, 2018 ___________________________________

Randolph M. Hammock

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] Because this motion to strike was filed on December 22, 2017, the meet and confer requirement set forth in CCP § 435.5 is not applicable.

[2] On the other hand, without a claim for punitive damages, these types of allegations would normally be subject to be stricken as “irrelevant” or “improper.”