Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (1) Amended Answer of Carrie Ortiz and (2) Answer of Estate of Gregory Ortiz
Tulare County (Civil) - Civil - https://www.tulare.courts.ca.gov/general-information/tentative-rulings
Tentative Rulings Civil Tentative Rulings and Probate Examiner Recommendations are available below. All attempts possible are made to have the information on these pages updated by 3:00pm the day prior to hearing in order to allow for any needed continuances or travel if an appearance should be required.
Civil Tentative Rulings: The court does not issue tentative rulings on Writs of Attachment, Writs of Possession, Claims of Exemption, Claims of Right to Possession, Motions to Tax Costs After Trial, Motions for New Trial, or Motions to Continue Trial. Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308 and Local Rule 701, any party opposed to the tentative ruling must notify the court and other parties by 4:00 p.m. today of their intention to appear for oral argument. The court's notice must be made by facsimile (fax) to 559-733-6774; by email to research_attorney@tulare.courts.ca.gov; or by telephoning (559) 730-5010.
Probate Examiner Recommendations: For further information regarding a probate matter listed below you may contact the Probate Document Examiner at 559-730-5000 ext #1430. The Probate Calendar Clerk may be reached at 559-730-5000 Option 4, then Option 6. Note: The court does not issue probate examiner recommendations on petitions for approval of compromise of claim.
Current Tentative Rulings
The Tentative Rulings for Thursday, June 4, 2026, are:
Re: City of Farmersville vs. Ortiz, Toni Case No.: VCU323329 Date: June 4, 2026 Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept. 1-The Honorable David C. Mathias Motion: Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (1) Amended Answer of Carrie Ortiz and (2) Answer of Estate of Gregory Ortiz
Tentative Ruling: (1) To grant the motion with leave to amend; Defendant Carrie Ortiz shall have ten (10) days to file a further amended, verified answer; (2): To grant the motion with leave to amend; Defendant Estate of Gregory Ortiz shall have ten (10) days to file an amended, verified answer. Case Management Conference is continued to August 13, 2026; 8:30 am; D1.
Facts Common to (1) and (2)
In this verified abatement action, Plaintiff sues, amongst others, Defendants Carrie Ortiz and Estate of Gregory Ortiz. Defendant Carrie Ortiz initially filed an unverified answer and the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to strike the answer with leave to amend. On December 1, 2025, Defendant Carrie Ortiz filed an amended answer, which was also unverified. The Court, on February 26, 2026, granted a second motion to strike with leave to amend. On March 18, 2026, Defendant Carrie Ortiz filed an amended answer, which remains unverified. On April 10, 2026, Plaintiff filed the motion to strike the second amended answer of Carrie Ortiz.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
On February 2, 2026, Defendant Estate of Gregory Ortiz, via Carrie Ortiz, filed an unverified answer to the complaint. On March 16, 2026, Plaintiff filed the motion to strike the answer of Estate of Gregory Ortiz. No oppositions to these motions have been filed. Plaintiff has filed a notice of non opposition.
Authority and Analysis Common to (1) and (2)
Any party may file a timely notice of a motion to strike the whole or any part of a pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 435, subd. (b).) The motion may seek to strike any "irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading" or any part of the pleading "not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 436.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 446(a) requires that a defendant responding to a verified complaint must file a verified answer: "When the complaint is verified, the answer shall be verified." Here, Plaintiff filed a verified complaint Defendant Estate of Gregory Ortiz's answer is unverified. Defendant Carrie Ortiz's second amended answer is unverified. Therefore, the Court grants the motions.
Like a demurrer, the motions cannot be granted without leave where it appears reasonably possible to amend the pleading. (Canton Poultry & Deli, Inc v. Stockwell, Harris, Widom, and Woolverton (2003) 109 Cal.App.4 th 1219, 1226 [as to demurrers.]) Therefore, the Court grants the motion with leave to amend. Defendant Carrie Ortiz shall have ten (10) days to file a further amended, verified answer. Defendant Estate of Gregory Ortiz shall have ten (10) days to file an amended, verified answer.
If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.
Re: Schermerhorn, Benjamin Edward vs. Orosi Tires LLC Case No.: VCU331096 Date: June 4, 2026 Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept. 1-The Honorable David C. Mathias Motion: Defendant Orosi Tires LLC's Motion to Quash
Tentative Ruling: To deny the motion, as Defendant Orosi Tires LLC, as a business entity, cannot represent itself. (See CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145 [as to corporate entities].)
If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.
Re: Barboza, Jesus vs. General Motors LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company Case No.: VCU319184 Date: June 4, 2026 Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept. 1-The Honorable David C. Mathias Motion: Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees
Tentative Ruling: To award a total of $9,568.04 consisting of $6,930 in fees and $2,638.04 in costs.
Facts
In this matter, Plaintiff alleges the purchase of a 2022 GMC Sierra which developed substantial engine and electrical defects. The parties resolved this matter for $71,000 without return of the Subject Vehicle. The cash price of the Subject Vehicle was $64,964.55. On March 19, 2026, a conditional notice of settlement was filed.