CARTER, et al. vs THE LAW OFFICES OF JAMES L. ARRASMITH, P.C., et al.

25CV010458: CARTER, et al. vs THE LAW OFFICES OF JAMES L. ARRASMITH, P.C., et al. 12/17/2025 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Complaint in Department 25

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 25 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept25 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 1342 1868. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

25CV010458: CARTER, et al. vs THE LAW OFFICES OF JAMES L. ARRASMITH, P.C., et al. 12/17/2025 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Complaint in Department 25

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants’ motion to strike portions of plaintiffs’ complaint was continued to this date to permit defendants to meet and confer “in person or by telephone” with plaintiffs and then to file a supplemental declaration relating to those meet-and-confer efforts, while also identifying any issues which no longer need resolution. The Court has received and reviewed the declaration filed by defendants on 12/11/2025 (which they acknowledge was actually due on 12/2/2025) and the declaration filed by plaintiffs on 12/12/2025, although neither declaration complies with CRC Rule 3.1110(b)(1), (3)-(4).

The parties are directed to promptly resume their meet-and-confer efforts, either “in person or by telephone,” in an attempt to resolve the various issues presented by defendants’ current motion to strike. To assist the parties with their efforts, the Court offers the following additional comments.

Although a motion to strike is appropriate vehicle to strike out any “irrelevant, false or improper” matter asserted in any pleading and/or a portion of a pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the law (Code Civ. Pro. §436), the use of the motion to strike should be “cautious and sparing” and is not to be considered a procedural “line item veto” which permits a party to surgically excise discrete allegations which do not otherwise have any genuine bearing on the sufficiency of the claim(s) asserted or the legal relief available. (See, e.g., PH II, Inc. v.

Superior Court (Ibershof) (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1682-1683.) Indeed, the First District Court of Appeal’s en banc decision in PH II, Inc. explained a motion to strike is certainly a proper means by which to challenge punitive damages allegations and may also lie when the face of the complaint fails to plead facts showing a primary right of the plaintiff and a primary duty of, or wrong committed by, the defendant. (Id. (citing Lodi v. Lodi (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 628, 631.) But the appellate panel cautioned that the other circumstances when a motion to strike is permissibly made or granted are limited, such as “a violation of the applicable statute of limitations or a purported claim of right which is legally invalid.” (Id.)

As such, evidentiary objections including but not limited to foundation, hearsay,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV010458: CARTER, et al. vs THE LAW OFFICES OF JAMES L. ARRASMITH, P.C., et al. 12/17/2025 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Complaint in Department 25

admissibility and the like are generally not valid grounds for a motion to strike but instead are properly asserted only at trial or other evidentiary hearings. (See, e.g., Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 494 [pleadings are not typically evidentiary matters that are submitted to jury]; SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905 [demurrer tests sufficiency of allegations without regard to evidentiary support]; Ivanoff v. Bank of America, N.A. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 719, 725 [legal standard for demurrer and motion to strike is the same: To test legal sufficiency of factual allegations irrespective of party’s ability to prove them with admissible evidence]

In light of the preceding, the parties shall promptly resume their meet-and-confer efforts “in person or by telephone” and shall file no later than 1/7/2026 a joint statement which shall clearly identify each of the individual allegations challenged by the present motion to strike and state whether the parties have resolved their dispute(s) over each allegation. For each allegation which has not been completely resolved, the joint statement shall clearly identify/explain the nature of the remaining dispute(s) requiring resolution by the Court and clearly describe each party’s last position with respect to same so as to assist the Court in resolving this matter.

The parties shall format the joint statement in a manner which will enable the Court to most efficiently rule on the unresolved issues.

Accordingly, defendants’ motion to strike portions of plaintiffs’ complaint is on the Court’s own motion CONTINUED to 1/21/2026 at 1:30 p.m. in this department. Except as noted above, no further filings on this motion to strike will be permitted or considered.

Moving parties to provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same no later than 12/24/2025.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)