CHARLES WEBER VS. LAS VIRGENES MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT

Case Number: SC111389    Hearing Date: October 20, 2014    Dept: I

WEBER v. LAS VIRGENES MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
SC111389 (C/W BC459911 [Bialik v. Weber] and SC114130 [Josephson v. Weber])

JOSEPHSON PARTIES’ MOTION TO STRIKE KWAN PARTIES’ FIRST AMENDED ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT
10/20/14

Complaint filed: 2/9/11
Trial date: 2/23/15

Tentative Decision

The Josephson Parties, in their capacities as Cross-Complainants, seek to strike the Kwan Parties’ “First Amended Answer to Josephson Cross-Complaint” for a variety of reasons. The Court will grant the motion.

Upon close review of the moving, opposition, and reply briefs, the Court unfortunately concludes that subject pleading demonstrates the continuing obfuscation of the issues by the Kwan Parties and their counsel which, a review of the file in this action (including the very recent recommendation of the discovery referee) shows, has permeated this action. Indeed, in the subject pleading, the Kwan Parties, perhaps waging a war of attrition, ignore prior rulings and orders issued by Judge Goodman and continue to seek to inject irrelevant issues and matters into their answer.

If the Kwan Parties believed that Judge Goodman erred in his rulings and orders on the Josephsons’ motion for summary judgment as to the Kwan Parties’ TACC and/or the Josephsons’ motion for good faith settlement determination, they should have taken their contentions to that effect before the Court of appeal. It is improper to inject those issues into this action at this time; that ship has sailed.

The Court will permit the 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 14th affirmative defenses to be properly restated in a second amended answer, for the reasons stated in the moving and reply briefs. However, it will strike the balance of the affirmative defenses without leave to amend, again, for the reasons stated in the moving and reply briefs.

Motion is granted in part. Motion to strike the First Amended Answer to Josephson Cross-Complaint in its entirety is denied without prejudice. Requests to strike the 1st, 4th- 6th, 10th- 15th and 19th affirmative defenses are granted without leave to amend. Request to strike the 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 14th affirmative defenses are granted with leave to amend. The Kwan Parties’ second amended answer, clearly captioned as such, is to be served and filed on or before August 15, 2014. No new affirmative defenses are to be asserted, i.e., only the 1st, 4th- 6th, 10th- 15th and 19th affirmative defenses are to be asserted, and then only in a proper manner. The Kwan Parties’ second amended answer is not to in any manner include allegations which disregard any prior ruling or order issued in this action, including this one.

Any attempt by the Kwan parties to circumvent this order may, upon proper motion, lead to the striking of their second amended answer with prejudice – and the entry of their defaults. See, CCP 436 and CCP 128; see also, CCP 128.7(d); Ricard v. Grobstein, Goldman, et al. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 157, 162.

NOTICE

The Josephsons shall give notice of today’s rulings and timely file proof of service thereof, pursuant to CCP 1019.5 and CRC 3.1312. A copy of this ruling is to be attached thereto.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Copy the code below to your web site.
x 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *