Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 23STCV15082, Date: 2024-03-13 Tentative Ruling



Case Number: 23STCV15082    Hearing Date: March 13, 2024    Dept: 55

 

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Demurrer of Defendant Michael Nader to Plaintiff's Complaint; Motion Thereof to Strike Plaintiff's Complaint.

 

The demurrer is sustained, and the motion is granted, with 20 days’ leave to amend.

 

BACKGROUND

In this case, DANIEL DAVIDSON (“Plaintiff”) seeks damages against Defendants MICHAEL NADER (“Defendant Nader”) and DALE W ASHINGTON (“Defendant Washington”) in connection with a rehab center run by Plaintiff and Defendant Nader, and alleged legal malpractice committed by Defendant Washington. The causes of action are: 1) Trespass to Chattel; 2) Threats; 3) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; and 4) Professional Malpractice. Plaintiff asserts the first and second claims against Defendant Nader.

Defendant Nader brings (1) a demurrer to the Complaint’s first and second causes of action, including because allegations are uncertain, and (2) a motion to strike allegations regarding punitive damages and unsupported claims. Plaintiff has filed a response declaration from an attorney stating that the Complaint could be amended by substituted-in counsel.  

LEGAL STANDARD

In order to obtain leave to amend, complainants must state how the allegations would be amended in order to state a cause of action.  Drum v. San Fernando Valley Bar Ass'n  (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 247, 253. Courts generally allow at least one time to amend a complaint, after sustaining a demurrer even without any request for leave to amend.  McDonald v. Sup. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal. App. 3d 297, 303; City of Stockton v. Sup.Ct. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 730, 747.

ANALYSIS

The Court agrees with Defendant Nader that the claims for trespass to chattel and assault lack sufficient factual allegations. The Court also agrees that the Complaint contains no facts to support Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages. Plaintiff did not contest these arguments, and in fact acknowledges that the Complaint has “many deficiencies.” The issue for the Court is whether to allow leave to amend.  Pursuant to the response declaration of substitute counsel, filed 3/1/24, offering to amend the Complaint written by a self-represented litigant, the Court finds that there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment.

CONCLUSION

The demurrer is sustained and the motion is granted with leave to amend.