DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC25621290·sf·Civil·Civil Litigation
Hearing 6 months agoDENIED

ABIMBOLA AJAYI VS. CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL

MOTION TO STRIKE Amended COMPLAINT

Hearing date
Mar 10, 2026
Department
302
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Strike rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffABIMBOLA AJAYI
DefendantCITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
DefendantThe Regents of the University of California
DefendantShreya Patel

Ruling

Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Tuesday, March 10, 2026, Line 6. 1 - The Regents of the University of California and Shreya Patel's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint is DENIED.

A party may move to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 436 "any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading" or "all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court." "In the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties." (CCP 452.)

Moving Defendants here contend the TAC is unauthorized. The court granted Plaintiff leave to amend the Second Amended Complaint to substitute Doe Defendants. Plaintiff's TAC adds the Doe Defendants and allegations to support the claims against them. Moving Defendants have not demonstrated the TAC was not drawn or filed in conformity with a court order such that it should be stricken

An order striking a pleading is a matter of discretion and, here, the court takes a practical approach. Had Plaintiff amened only to name the Does but omitted any allegations specific to those defendants, those defendants would surely have demurred on the grounds the complaint fails to state a cause of action against them. If sustained, the demurrer would have led to another round of amendments. Striking the TAC, would lead to a new complaint only naming the former Does, another demurrer, and likely another round of amendments. The court sees no point in this approach. As it is, the former Does have demurred; the court will address that demurrer.

Prior to the time set for hearing, Moving Parties shall lodge by email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org a proposed order containing the above text verbatim.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/JMQ) | |

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

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?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share