Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 24STCV15150, Date: 2025-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV15150    Hearing Date: March 27, 2025    Dept: 52

Defendant Monarch E&S Insurance Services’ Demurrer and Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint     

Demurrer

            Defendant Monarch E&S Insurance Services (Monarch) demurs to plaintiff Teresa Pimentel’s ninth and 11th causes of action.

9th Cause of Action: Penal Code § 496

Plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts for this cause of action against Monarch.  The complaint must allege “that (i) property was stolen or obtained in a manner constituting theft, (ii) the defendant knew the property was so stolen or obtained, and (iii) the defendant received or had possession of the stolen property.”  (Switzer v. Wood (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 116, 126.) 

Plaintiff alleges defendant Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company (Atlantic) obtained her insurance premiums under false pretenses.  She alleges, “By taking premium from Plaintiff yet having no intent in acting in accordance with its contractual, statutory, regulatory obligations, and other legal obligations, Atlantic procured funds from Plaintiffs under false pretenses.”  (Comp., ¶ 112.)  In this cause of action, plaintiff does not allege any conduct by Monarch at all.  She does not allege Monarch received any money from her, let alone that it did so knowing the property was stolen or obtained via fraud.

11th Cause of Action: Unruh Civil Rights Act

            Plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts for this cause of action against Monarch.  For a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the plaintiff must allege “defendant is a business enterprise that intentionally discriminate[d] against and denie[d] the plaintiff full and equal treatment of a service, advantage or accommodation based on the plaintiff’s protected status.”  (Civil Rights Department v. Cathy’s Creations, Inc. (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 869, 891.) 

            In this cause of action, plaintiff alleges defendants discriminated against her because “Atlantic treated Plaintiff deplorably” in the course of her insurance claims.  (Comp., ¶ 129.c.)  She alleges, “[T]he motivating reason of Defendants’ conduct was to avoid paying legitimate claims of Plaintiff and to take advantage of her due to her age and [Hispanic] descent.”  (¶ 136.)  But Monarch was not her insurer.  Plaintiff does not allege facts showing Monarch did anything to deny plaintiff full and equal treatment in its services. 

Moreover, plaintiff makes only conclusory allegations of discriminatory intent.  The complaint’s allegations must “raise[] a plausible inference [defendant] treated [plaintiff] unequally because of her” protected status.  (Liapes v. Facebook, Inc. (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 910, 926.)  The complaint does not explain how Monarch even knew she belonged to any protected status other than by alleging, “Defendants necessarily knew that Plaintiff was over 65 and of Hispanic origin.”  (Comp., ¶ 135.a.)  The gravamen of plaintiff’s claim is that “[a]s Defendants have no legitimate explanation for their malfeasance,” they must have been motivated by “prohibited discrimination.”  (¶ 135.)  That is insufficient.     

Motion to Strike

            Defendant Monarch E&S Insurance Services moves to strike four portions of the complaint regarding punitive damages.  These portions pertain to the ninth (¶ 124 & prayer, p. 96, line 26) and 11th causes of action (¶ 141 & prayer, p. 97, line 20).  The court will sustain the demurrer to those causes of action.  The motion to strike is therefore moot.

Disposition

            Defendant Monarch E&S Insurance Services’ demurrer to plaintiff Teresa Pimentel’s ninth and 11th causes of action is sustained with 20 days’ leave to amend.  Defendant Monarch E&S Insurance Services’ motion to strike portions of the complaint is denied as moot.