Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV22553, Date: 2023-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV22553    Hearing Date: February 10, 2023    Dept: 74

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – CENTRAL District

Department 74

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant Luke Rottman

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Michael Benincaso

Defendant Luke Rottman’s Motion to Strike Punitive Damages from the First Amended Complaint

The court considered the moving and opposition papers filed in connection with this motion.

BACKGROUND

            On July 12, 2022, Plaintiff Michael Benincaso filed the instant action against Defendant Luke Rottman.

            On October 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint for (1) breach of contract and (2) intentional misrepresentation.  

            Defendant Luke Rottman moves to strike punitive damages from the FAC. Plaintiff opposes, and in support of his opposition attaches to his response a proposed Second Amended Complaint. Defendant has not filed a reply.

DISCUSSION

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1).)  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, subd. (a); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782 [“Matter in a pleading which is not essential to the claim is surplusage; probative facts are surplusage and may be stricken out or disregarded”].)  The court may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with California law, a court rule, or an order of the court.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).)  An immaterial or irrelevant allegation is one that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense; is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense; or a demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10, subd. (b).)  The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)

            Defendant Luke Rottman moves to strike punitive damages from the FAC. Plaintiff has filed a response in opposition to which he has attached a proposed Second Amended Complaint which adds allegations involving purported malice, fraud, and oppression missing from the FAC. Plaintiff’s proposed SAC thus silently concedes the thrust of Defendant’s motion to strike. Accordingly, the court grants Defendant’s motion with leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court grants Defendant’s motion to strike with leave to amend.

Plaintiff shall file his Second Amended Complaint within 5 days of this ruling.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  February 10, 2023

_____________________________

Colin Leis

Judge of the Superior Court