Howland, et al. v. Sabet, et al.

CASE NUMBER: 25CV-0207803 Tentative Ruling on Motion to Strike: Plaintiffs David Howland and Lori Howland move to strike the Cross- Complaint filed by Defendants Farzad Sabet and Marikit Sabet on May 22, 2026. The Sabet Defendants oppose the motion.

As a preliminary matter, when reviewing this motion, the Court noticed that the clerk set aside the default at issue on February 23, 2026. This was a clerical error. While the parties discussed setting aside the default at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on February 23, 2026, no such order was made. The Court orders that the default was set aside effective April 6, 2026, which is the date the Court executed the Order to Set Aside Default. The clerk is directed to correct the date on the default set aside. 4

Meet and Confer. Plaintiffs have provided sufficient evidence of their attempt to meet and confer prior to filing the motion. Even if efforts were insufficient, that is not grounds to deny the motion. CCP § 435.5(a)(4).

Merits. A motion to strike can be used to attack the entire pleading, or any part thereof, including single words or phrases. Stearns Ranchos v. Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railway (1981) 19 Cal. App. 3d 24. Pursuant to CCP § 436(b), a Court may strike out 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 this matter, Default was entered on July 14, 2025. On March 25, 2026 the parties submitted a Stipulation and Order. The Order was executed on April 6, 2026 and reads, in relevant part “Defendants FARZAD SABET and MARIKIT SABET shall file and serve their answer, and will file no other responsive pleadings to the complaint, such as demurrer or motion for judgment on the pleadings, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.” The Order does include any wording about a Cross-Complaint. Defendants filed an Answer and Cross-Complaint on May 22, 2026. This is long past the 20 days permitted by the Order. However, Plaintiffs only seek to strike the Cross-Complaint, not the Answer.

The Cross-Complaint was not filed in conformity with the Court’s Order dated April 6, 2026. The plain language of the Order permitted that only an Answer be filed. The Court notes that Defendants used the Opposition to this motion to seek leave to file a Cross-Complaint. That is improper. Defendants will need to bring their own noticed motion seeking leave to file a Cross-Complaint.

The Motion to Strike is GRANTED. The Cross-Complaint filed by Defendants Farzad Sabet and Marikit Sabet is ordered STRICKEN. The clerk is directed to strike the Cross-Complaint filed May 22, 2026. Plaintiffs did not provide a proposed Order as required by Local Rule of Court 5.17(D). Plaintiffs are to prepare the Order.

JONES, ET AL. VS. TAYLOR