Michael Helmrich vs. San Juan Unified School District

34-2022-00329107-CU-PO-GDS: Michael Helmrich vs. San Juan Unified School District 11/08/2023 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 53

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 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. 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, 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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

34-2022-00329107-CU-PO-GDS: Michael Helmrich vs. San Juan Unified School District 11/08/2023 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 53

Plaintiffs’ motion to strike “all affirmitive [sic] defenses within the Amended Answer” of defendant was originally set for hearing on 10/11/2023 but was continued to this date to permit the parties to complete the meet-and-confer process mandated by Code of Civil Procedure §435.5. The Court has received the supplemental declaration from plaintiffs’ counsel and now rules as follows.

*** If oral argument is requested, the parties must at the time oral argument is requested notify the clerk and opposing counsel of the specific affirmative defenses that will be addressed at the hearing. Counsel are also reminded that pursuant to local rules, only limited oral argument is permitted on law and motion matters. ***

The moving memorandum of points & authorities fails to comply with the page limitations set forth in CRC Rule 3.1113(d) and moving counsel failed to timely seek leave of court prior to filing an oversized brief pursuant to Rule 3.1113(e).

Moving counsel is advised that the failure to comply with the Rules of Court may in the future result in the Court disregarding and/or striking non-compliant papers.

Factual Background

This action arises out of physical and emotional injuries allegedly suffered by a student as a result of multiple attacks by other students attending one of defendant district’s schools. The complaint asserts various negligence-based claims as well as one for breach of a mandatory duty. In response, defendant filed an answer consisting of a general denial followed by 22 affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs then filed both a demurrer and a motion to strike, both of which targeted the affirmative defenses alleged by defendant. Prior to the hearing on these motions, defendant filed an amended answer which also consisted of a general denial and 22 affirmative defenses.

Curiously, plaintiffs now move to strike all 22 affirmative defenses alleged in the amended answer on each of the grounds set forth in Code of Civil Procedure §430.20(a) [relating to demurrers to answers] including that the amended answer “does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense,” “is uncertain” and to the extent it pleads the existence of a contract, “it cannot be ascertained whether it is written or oral.” In general, plaintiffs contend that affirmative defenses “may not simply state legal conclusions but must state supporting facts carefully and with as much detail as is required in a Complaint,” citing FPI Development, Inc. v.

Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 384. This motion to strike otherwise appears virtually identical to plaintiffs’ pending demurrer to the amended answer and this includes plaintiffs’ concluding request that leave to amend be denied because defects in the affirmative defenses cannot be remedied.

Defendant school district opposes, first pointing out that the present motion to strike incorrectly

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00329107-CU-PO-GDS: Michael Helmrich vs. San Juan Unified School District 11/08/2023 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 53

cites the legal standards for demurrers rather than motions to strike and then noting that the motion to strike “parrots” the pending demurrer by plaintiffs. The opposition to the motion to strike, like the opposition to the pending demurrer, insists that these affirmative defenses must be pled or they will be waived and that the amended answer now includes facts sufficient to withstand plaintiffs’ challenge. Thus, defendant requests the motion to strike be denied.

Discussion

The Court finds the substance of the present motion to strike to be identical to that of plaintiffs’ pending demurrer and since a tentative ruling addressing the merits of the parties’ respective arguments relative to the demurrer has been prepared and posted, the present motion to strike shall be dropped as moot.

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, plaintiffs’ motion to strike is DROPPED from calendar.

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