Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 23STCV28416, Date: 2024-06-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV28416    Hearing Date: June 3, 2024    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Defendant’s Motion to Strike Portions of the Complaint.

BACKGROUND

TAI-LI CHU (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Y. JESSIE SHAW dba LAW OFFICE OF Y. JESSIE SHAW (“Defendant”), alleging that, after promising to complete it for under $3,000, Defendant dragged out Plaintiff’s uncontested marriage dissolution so that Defendant could bill more in attorney's fees, while inflating billings. The causes of action are (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Fraud, (3) Accounting, (4) Elder Abuse, (5) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and (7) Declaratory Relief.

Defendant brings a motion requesting an order striking allegations regarding punitive damages. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

“In order to survive a motion to strike an allegation of punitive damages, the ultimate facts showing an entitlement to such relief must be pled by a plaintiff.” Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.

ANALYSIS

Defendant seeks to strike the portion of the prayer for relief that states “for all cause[] of action” because not all causes of action in the Complaint can support punitive damages. “Where a motion to strike is so broad as to include relevant matters, the motion should be denied in its entirety.” Triodyne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 536, 542.

Because punitive damages relate to some of the claims, striking references to them from the Complaint’s prayer would be overly broad. Thus, the Court denies the motion as to this issue.

Defendant also contends that Plaintiff has alleged insufficient ultimate facts to seek punitive damages. But Plaintiff’s claims for Fraud, Elder Abuse, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress theoretically could support punitive damages. Additionally, Defendant’s fraudulently promising a limit of $3,000 in attorney’s fees and overbilling an elder are alleged ultimate facts in support of punitive damages. E.g., Complaint, ¶¶ 8, 11, 14 and 23.

Finally, Defendant seeks to strike the request for $10,000,000 in punitive damages because stating an amount of punitive damages in a complaint is prohibited by Civil Code section 3295, subdivision (e). “No claim for exemplary damages shall state an amount or amounts.” Civ. Code § 3295, subd. (e). “When the plaintiff improperly states in the complaint the amount of punitive damages being sought the defendant has several remedies available including a motion to strike….” Cummings Med. Corp. v. Occupational Med. Corp. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1291, 1298.

Here, the prayer improperly states a dollar amount of punitive damages and so the Court grants the motion to strike just the reference to the amount of punitive damages. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion, let alone make a showing as to how the allegations would be amended. Thus, the Court grants the motion to strike the amount of punitive damages without leave to amend.  

CONCLUSION

Therefore, the Court grants the unopposed motion to strike the following portion of the Complaint: Page 8, line 5, where it states, “in the amount of $10,000,000” and otherwise denies the motion.  

Defendants has twenty days to answer the surviving allegations.