California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Adohr Milk Farms, Inc. v. Love, 255 Cal.App.2d 366, 63 Cal.Rptr. 123 (Cal. App. 1967):
4 The only other statutory provision permitting a complaint to be challenged by motion to strike is section 453 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A motion under section 453, if addressed to a complaint as distinguished from an answer, reaches only 'irrelevant and redundant matter' contained in it. The use of a motion to strike has also been approved to dispose of a 'sham' complaint. (Neal v. Bank of America (1949) 93 Cal.App.2d 678, 681--683, 209 P.2d 825.) But the present motion attempted to challenge the complaint by invoking the statute of limitations, which is not an attack upon 'irrelevant and redundant matter' nor upon a 'sham' complaint. (Comment (1956) 3 U.C.L.A.L.Rev. 72.) We therefore conclude that, insofar as the motion was to strike the complaint, the only statute controlling it was section 435 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.