Leach vs. Qsafi

rule or an order of the court. Code Civ. Proc. § 436. “Irrelevant” matters include: allegations not essential to the claim, allegations neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or a demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc. § 431.10(b).) A motion to strike can also strike legal conclusions. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide, Civil Proc. before Trial, ¶ 7:179 (2010).) Conclusory allegations are permitted, however, if they are supported by other factual allegations in the complaint. (Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App. 3d 1, 6.)

Motions to strike are disfavored. Pleadings are to be construed liberally with a view to substantial justice. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 452; Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide, Civil Proc. before Trial, ¶ 7:197 (2010).) The allegations of the complaint are presumed true; they are read as a whole and in context. (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.)

Cross-Defendant cites to the parties’ contract which includes a provision for the waiver of damages. (See Cross-Complaint, Ex. B, § 9.14.) Whether this provision precludes the requested damages or alternatively is unconscionable, is a determination for another day. Similarly, whether the claimed damages are speculative as they are based on an engineering calculation of estimated cost savings, is irrelevant at the pleading state.

Because Cross-Complainants adequately plead damages as a result of the alleged breach of contract, the motion to strike is denied.

15. 2025-1522605 Defendant Javid F. Osafi, DMD’s Demurrer to Plaintiff Elizabeth S. Leach vs. Qsafi Leach’s Complaint is sustained with 15 days’ leave to amend.