Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 23STCV01637, Date: 2023-11-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV01637    Hearing Date: November 1, 2023    Dept: 74

United Bridge Trucking Corp. v. Tommy Wang, et al.

Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND 

            This action arises from a business dispute,

            On January 25, 2023, Plaintiff United Bridge Trucking Corp. (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendants Tommy Wang, Pin Pin Kuo, Anna Zhang, C Lion, and WA Transportation (Defendants).

            On July 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (FAC). The FAC alleges the following causes of action: breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, fraudulent concealment, conspiracy, intentional misrepresentation, accounting and constructive trust, partition and accounting, and dissolution.

            On September 20, 2023, Defendants filed this motion to strike portions of the FAC.

LEGAL STANDARD

            A court may strike any “¿irrelevant, false or improper matter¿inserted in any pleading¿” or any part of a 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¿.) “¿The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.¿” (¿Code Civ. Proc., § 437¿.)¿           

DISCUSSION 

            Defendants first seek to strike paragraph 21 of the FAC and Exhibit 1 in its entirety. The former refers to an unsigned settlement agreement, while the latter is the agreement itself. In support, Defendants cite Evidence Code section 1152, subdivision (a), and an unpublished case that is not binding on this court. But Evidence Code section 1152, subdivision (a) only “prohibits the introduction into evidence of an offer to compromise a claim for the purpose of proving liability for that claim.” (Fletcher v. Western National Life Ins. Co. (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 376, 396.) Here, Plaintiff relies on the unsigned settlement agreement to demonstrate it has an ownership interest in Defendant WA Transportation. (Opposition, p. 10; FAC, ¶¶ 19-24.) Plaintiff is not using the agreement to prove Defendants’ liability for the claims in the FAC by virtue of Defendants offer to compromise them. Thus, the court will not strike paragraph 21 or Exhibit 1.

            Next, Defendants aim to strike paragraphs 50, 56, 62, 68, and 76, in addition to page 20, lines 13-14. To that end, Defendants contend the allegations in the FAC are insufficient to support an award of punitive damages. Punitive damages require a showing of malice, oppression, or fraud. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) In this context, 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.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(3).) The FAC alleges in part that Defendants knowingly misrepresented that Plaintiff would receive a 50% share interest in Defendant WA Transportation in exchange for Plaintiff’s investments, materials, and services. (FAC, ¶ 71.) Moreover, Defendant’s intended for their misrepresentation to cause Plaintiff’s financial losses. (FAC, ¶ 72.) Given the foregoing, the court will not strike the references to punitive damages.

            Last, Defendants target paragraph 102 of the FAC, in addition to the following portions of the prayer: page 20, line 15; page 22, lines 4-5; and page 22, line 9. In those portions of the FAC, Plaintiff requests attorney’s fees. As Defendants note, such fees are only recoverable if a statute or agreement so provides. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.) Defendants contend the FAC does not allege a basis for recovery of attorney’s fees. Plaintiff in turn has provided no arguments to the contrary. Thus, the court will grant Defendants’ motion to strike paragraph 102, page 20, line 15, page 22, lines 4-5, and page 22, line 9. But the court will also grant Plaintiff leave to amend accordingly.

CONCLUSION

            Based on the foregoing, the court grants Defendants’ motion to strike in part with leave to amend.

Defendants are ordered to give notice.