Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 22STCV22914, Date: 2023-03-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV22914    Hearing Date: March 10, 2023    Dept: 76




            Plaintiff leased production studio space from Defendant, with an option to purchase the property. Defendant allegedly interfered with Plaintiff’s business from prospective clients who wished to rent studio space from Plaintiff. Moreover, Defendant was allegedly responsible for a flood to the building, which Plaintiff paid to have the resulting damages repaired.

            Defendant Castaic Studios, LLC filed a Cross-Complaint alleging that Plaintiff ceased making payments as required under the License Agreement, yet continued to occupy the premises and improperly maintained possession and control despite Cross-Complainant’s objections.

Cross-Defendants Wonderland Studios, LLC and Beni Tadd Atoori move to strike portions of the First Amended Cross-Complaint.

TENTATIVE RULING

Cross-Defendants Wonderland Studios, LLC and Beni Tadd Atoori’s motion to strike portions of the First Amended Cross-Complaint is DENIED. 

Cross-Defendants are to answer the First Amended Cross-Complaint within 10 days. 

ANALYSIS

Demurrer

 

Meet and Confer

 

            The Declaration of Melissa N. Eubanks reflects that Cross-Defendant’s counsel satisfied the meet and confer requirement set forth in CCP § 435.5.

 

Discussion

 

            To the extent Cross-Defendants move to strike unspecified portions, i.e., “and those portions of the prayer requesting punitive damages,” the motion is denied for failure to specify the portions to be stricken, as required by Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1322(a).

 

Cross-Defendants Wonderland Studios, LLC and Beni Tadd Atoori move to strike the following portions of the First Amended Cross-Complaint.

 

¿         ¶¶ 26, 40 (last sentence): DENIED. 

           

            With regard to the trespass cause of action, ¶¶ 24 – 26 allege:         

 

24. In trespassing onto the Premises, Cross-Defendants have obstructed and prevented Castaic’s use of the Premises.

 

25. Cross-Defendants’ unauthorized entry onto, occupancy of, and use of the Premises has caused Castaic to be deprived of rights to the real property, and have damages Castaic in the amount of $300,000.00 per month, starting August 1, 2022, and continuing for each month thereafter.

 

26. Cross-Defendants’ trespass onto the Premises was done with knowledge of its wrongfulness and the harm it would cause, entitling Castaic to an award of punitive damages.

 

            With regard to the nuisance cause of action, ¶¶ 37 – 40 allege:

 

37. Cross-Defendants have wrongfully taken and held possession of the Premises, and obstructed Castaic from financing and using the Premises.

38. Cross-Defendants’ actions in wrongfully holding possession of the Premises and obstructing Castaic’s finance and use of the Premises constitutes unreasonable interference with Castaic’s use and enjoyment of the land.

 

39. Cross-Defendants’ wrongful actions are ongoing and Cross-Defendants continue to wrongfully hold possession the Premises and continue to obstruct Castaic from financing and using Premises, entitling Castaic to a remedy of injunctive relief seeking an order that Cross-

Defendants abate the nuisance.

 

40. As a result of Cross-Defendants’ wrongful actions, Castaic has suffered damages in the amount of $300,000.00 per month, starting August 1, 2022, and continuing for each month thereafter. Cross-Defendants’ actions are willful and wrongful, entitling Castaic to an award of punitive damages.

 

The foregoing allegations are sufficient to plead that Cross-Defendants acted with “malice,” as that term is defined in Civil Code, § 3294(c)(1) to include “conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff.”

 

Cross-Defendants are to answer the First Amended Cross-Complaint within 10 days.