CJS Pinemeadows Apartments, L.P. vs. Gonzales
Motion to Strike Complaint
Motion type
Parties
Ruling
trial notice by the clerk’s office. Considering these facts, the Court will order the Plaintiff’s counsel to respond to the discovery request within 5 days. The Court will not issue sanctions against the Plaintiff. Counsel for both parties are ordered to meet and confer prior to the pretrial date.
Given the amount of time for this motion and the need for discovery responses, the Court will advance and vacate the currently set pretrial and jury trial date and reset the pretrial hearing for June 26, 2026, at 8:30 AM in Department C61 and Jury Trial for June 29, 2026, at 8:30 AM in Department C61.
The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Answer (ROA 72). No opposition was filed by the Plaintiff. The Court grants the Defendant’s Leave to Amend First Amended Answer.
11 30-2026-01569971 The Court has read and considered the Defendants' Motion to Strike CJS Pinemeadows Complaint (ROA 32), the Complaint (ROA 2) and Plaintiff’s Opposition Apartments, L.P. vs. (ROA 39) . Gonzales The Court takes Judicial Notice of the Proof of Service of Summons (ROA 8, 10 & 14).
The Court DENIES the Motion to Strike Complaint.
California Code of Civil Procedure §435(b)(1) requires a motion to strike to be filed within the 10 business days of service of the summons and complaint. Under California Code of Civil Procedure §1014, a motion to strike is an appearance with the court; the Defendants are precluded from filing a motion to quash service following the filing of a Motion to Strike. Furthermore, California Code of Civil Procedure §435(d) does not extend time to file a demurrer. Therefore, because it has been well past the 10 business days following service of the Summons and Complaint on May 18 & 19, 2026, the Defendants are ordered to file an Answer within 5 calendar days.
Plaintiff is ordered to serve notice of the Court’s ruling.
12 30-2026-01565351 The Court has read and considered Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem the Truth of Regency Palms, LP vs. the Matters Specified in Plaintiff’s Request for Admission, Set No. (1), Riccobono Admitted and Conclusively Established (ROA 30).
IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion to Deem the Truth of the Matters Specified in Plaintiff’s Request for Admission, Set No. (1), Admitted and Conclusively Established is granted and that the truth of all specified matters, and the genuineness of all specified documents, in the First Set of Requests for Admission, propounded by Plaintiff and served on Defendant Donna Riccobono on May 21, 2026, be deemed admitted.
The Court orders the Defendant, Donna Riccobono, forthwith to pay a sanction in the amount of $176.58 to Plaintiff's Counsel. Given the Defendant’s court-approved fee waiver information and the Defendant’s disability status, in the interest of justice and equity, the Court will not impose
Cited authorities
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Ask about this ruling
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”