Legal Question in Business Law in California

A motion to strike is for attacking portions of a complaint that cannot be attacked by a demurrer. Those include improper allegations, or improper prayers for relief. They are not used for removing documents attached as exhibits that you don't like, and they are not for disputing facts.

Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP") sections 435 and 436 specify, in rather general terms, the purposes for which a motion to strike may be made. I'm sure the definitions would include TRULY unintelligible matter -- but a party's belief that material in a complaint is unintelligible, or for that matter that it fits any other category for which a motion to strike is appropriate, will not necessarily be shared by the judge! Further, material in a complaint that attempts to state or explain the plaintiff's intent is certainly not automatically improper and subject to striking. Finally, a complaint really isn't the right document in which to introduce evidence. Complaints should be limited to facts, as opposed to evidence of the facts, or legal conclusions. CCP 425.10.

Therefore, I would suggest that you use a motion to strike only if you are quite confident that the material to be stricken falls within CCP 435-436, and that the grounds for striking part or all of the compaint is obvious on its face, and does not require reference to other documents or argument.

A motion to strike must be supported by a memorandum of law (points and authorities) showing legal precedent for the requested action. Rules of Court 3.1113(a).

Neither documents attached to a complaint, nor produced in response to discovery are evidence. And you don't move to strike evidence, only testimony, and that only at trial or other hearing in court. Lastly, where the documents are unintelligible or ambiguous, evidence of the parties' intent is not only perfectly legitimate evidence, it is essential.

I agree with Mr. McCormick. You insist that the parties' intent has "no bearing" on what the documents mean, but that not true. Where the documents are ambiguous and can be read in different ways, evidence of the parties' intent is critically important.

Even where the documents seem clear (i.e., that they can reasonably be understood only one way), a party may introduce evidence that all of the parties gave it a different meaning. For instance, if a contract contains dollar amounts that are really thousands of dollars but that doesn't say so, a party can introduce evidence that all of the numbers should have three additional zeros at the end.