Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 21GDCV01055, Date: 2023-11-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21GDCV01055    Hearing Date: March 22, 2024    Dept: E

Case No: 21GDCV01055
Hearing Date:  03/22/2024 – 9:00am

Trial Date: 04/29/2024

Case Name: MARK GERAGOS, et al. v. ROBERT FRIEDLAND, et al.

TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION TO STRIKE

RELIEF REQUESTED
Cross-Defendants, Mark Geragos and Paulette Geragos (Movants), move the Court for an order striking the following paragraphs from the Cross-Complainants’ First Amended Cross-Complaint:

¶19, 24, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, ¶3 in the Prayer for Relief, and ¶5 in the Prayer for Relief.

This motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 435 and 436 and California Rules of Court 3.1320(i) on the grounds the Cross-Complaint includes irrelevant, false or improper matters that should be stricken. Specifically, the Complaint improperly requests punitive damages without any facts or law to support such relief. In addition, the Cross-Complaint includes allegations and references that are irrelevant, false, or improper, and thereby subject to be stricken.

[The Court notes that Movants request to strike ¶25, but the language that Movants reference to in ¶25 that they want stricken is actually from ¶26.]

Procedural

Moving Party: Cross-Defendants, Mark Geragos and Paulette Geragos (Movants)

Responding Party: Cross-Complainants, Robert Friedland and Careen A. Friedland

Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300): Ok
16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP 1005(b)): Ok
Proper Address: Ok

Moving Papers: Notice/Motion

Opposition Papers: Opposition

Reply Papers: Reply

Meet and Confer
Before filing a motion to strike pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the objections to be raised in the motion to strike. If an amended pleading is filed, the responding party shall meet and confer again with the party who filed the amended pleading before filing a motion to strike the amended pleading. (CCP §435.5(a).)

Counsel for Movants met and conferred but an agreement could not be reached.

BACKGROUND
The instant action pertains to a property dispute between neighbors.

Legal Standard Motion to Strike
The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc. § 436(a).) The court may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc. § 436(b).)  A motion to strike cannot be based upon the grounds that a complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, but instead is properly based on grounds of superfluous or abusive allegations, or improprieties in form or procedure. (Ferraro v. Camarlinghi (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 509, 528-29.)  

The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice.  (Code. Civ. Proc. § 437; Turman v. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63 [“judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth”].)   

Further, CCP § 431.10(a)-(c) states as follows:

(a) A material allegation in a pleading is one essential to the claim or defense and which could not be stricken from the pleading without leaving it insufficient as to that claim or defense.

(b) An immaterial allegation in a pleading is any of the following:

(1) An allegation that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense.

(2) An allegation that is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense.

(3) A demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint or cross-complaint.

(c) An “immaterial allegation” means “irrelevant matter” as that term is used in Section 436.

(CCP § 431.10(a)-(c).)

ANALYSIS

Punitive Damages
In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example by way of punishing the defendant. (Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a).)

“‘Malice’ means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” (CCP § 3294(c)(1).)

“‘Oppression’ means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights. (CCP § 3294(c)(2).)

“‘Fraud’ means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury. (CCP § 3294(c)(3).)

“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.) Conclusory allegations, devoid of any factual assertions, are insufficient to support a conclusion that parties acted with oppression, fraud or malice. (Smith v. Sup. Ct. (1992) 10 Cal. App. 4th 1033, 1042.) “Further, even though certain language pleads ultimate facts or conclusions of law, such language when read in context with the facts alleged as to defendants' conduct may adequately plead the evil motive requisite to recovery of punitive damages. (Monge v. Superior Court (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 503, 510 citing Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6–7.)

Movants argue that the paragraphs requesting punitive and exemplary damages should be stricken because there are no specific factual allegations set forth in the FACC against Cross-Defendants that could justify an award of punitive damages.

The Court tends to agree. 

As a more general matter, this lawsuit between neighbors, which appears to center on a claimed prescriptive easement involving dogs walking on a disputed portion or property is going into its third year of active litigation, with numerous motions continuously being filed as the case takes on a life of its own.

An examination of paragraphs 1-19 of the FACC is instructive.  Among the facts supposedly supporting a claim for punitive damages are the following:

On or about the years 2020 and 2021, the Geragoses substantially interfered with the private use and enjoyment by the Friedlands of the Friedland Property. . . . The Geragoses interfered with the Friedlands' daughter's peaceful occupancy by causing and allowing the Geragoses' dogs to enter upon the Friedland Property without permission and there run, bark and defecate, and approach, frighten and harass the Friedlands' daughter and her pets. Cross-defendant Paulette Geragos came without permission onto the Friedland Property and there disturbed the peace, accosted and yelled at the Friedlands' daughter. Paulette Geragos also accosted and yelled at the Friedlands' daughter while she was walking her dog in a nearby street. . . .

Cross-defendants interfered with the fence installers as they were being guided by the surveyor's work, accosting and yelling at them, and preventing them from completing their work. After the work crew left the scene, the survey marks were removed from the ground at the Friedland Property without the Friedlands' permission. Cross-complainants are informed and believe, and therefore allege, based on the behavior of the Cross-defendants described above, that the survey marks were removed by Cross-defendants.

  (FACC at ¶¶ 12-14.)

That these are the allegations at the core of an unlimited civil case that is going on three years of life in litigation is frankly, to this Court, incredible.

The allegations in the FACC do not support the claims for punitive damages, in the Court’s view.

Movants’ other arguments as to striking various portions of the FACC that are unrelated to punitive damages are confusing and ultimately unavailing.  The Court will hear from Plaintiffs, but the Court is currently disinclined to grant the motion as to the other portions of the FACC unrelated to punitive damages.

TENTATIVE RULING
The Court’s tentative is to GRANT the Cross-Defendants’ motion to strike in part and DENY the motion in part.