Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 24STCV19839, Date: 2025-01-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV19839    Hearing Date: January 6, 2025    Dept: 74

Shin et al. v. Lee et al.

Defendants Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company and Litta E. Lee’s Motion to Strike

BACKGROUND 

            This motion arises out of a breach of contract and negligence claim.

            Plaintiff Sammy K. Shin and Chung Ok Shin (Plaintiffs) allege that defendants Litta E. Lee, Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company, Terry B. Kwon, and Pam E. Lee breached their real estate contract by failing to disclose a previous break-in at the property.

            Defendants Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company and Litta E. Lee (Defendants) move to strike references to attorney’s fees and emotional damages.

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 move to strike references to attorney’s fees and emotional damages. 

Plaintiffs allege only property damages; therefore, Plaintiffs are not entitled to emotional damages.  (Erlich v. Menezes (1999) 21 Cal.4th 543, 557.)  Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion to strike emotional damages.  The Court grants the motion to strike references to emotional damages.

Defendants also move to strike references to attorney’s fees.  Plaintiffs request attorney’s fees under the doctrine of Tort of Another.  The Tort of Another doctrine does not apply where a plaintiff has been damaged by the joint negligence of multiple codefendants.  (Gorman v. Tassajara Dev. Corp. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 44, 80 (citing Vacco Industries, Inc. v. Van Den Berg, 5 Cal.App.4th 34, 57).)  The doctrine “does not reach so far as to allow plaintiffs to pick and choose which one of several joint tortfeasors should absorb the cost of the plaintiffs litigating with the other tortfeasors.”  (Gorman, supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at pp. 81.) The Court grants the Motion to Strike as to the Doctrine of Tort against Another.  The Court does not strike, however, references to attorney’s fees that may be recoverable from parties due to the Purchasing Agreement.

CONCLUSION

            The Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Strike in part and denies in part.  The Court grants the motion to:

·         Page 6, line 10-23: “Plaintiffs have incurred… (1963).”

Defendants to give notice.