Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: Halsey v. Halsey, Date: 2022-10-24 Tentative Ruling
The Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint filed by defendant John S. Halsey is DENIED.
A party may move to strike a pleading pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 435. In turn, Code of Civil Procedure section 436 provides that a court may strike (a) “any irrelevant, false, or improper matter” in a pleading, or strike (b) all 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.”
As to Items 1-3 in the Notice of Motion, Defendant asks this court to strike out language which he contends is false based on reference to documents attached to complaint and to the Request for Judicial Notice. The document attached to the complaint does not go to the foundation of any cause of action and is instead attached to illustrate the claim that the document was not valid. The documents attached to the Request for Judicial Notice are not relevant as the request has been denied.
As to the Motion to Strike the 4th cause of action and corresponding prayer for damages, defendant uses a motion to strike for what should have been a demurrer. Pierson v. Sharp Memorial Hospital, Inc. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 340, 342, explains, “Preliminarily, we note a motion to strike is generally used to reach defects in a pleading which are not subject to demurrer. A motion to strike does not lie to attack a complaint for insufficiency of allegations to justify relief; that is a ground for general demurrer. [Citation.]” Notwithstanding, the cause of action is sufficiently pled and within the jurisdiction of this Court.
As to the Motion to Strike the 5th cause of action, there is no discussion in the points and authorities of the 5th c/a asking that for defendant to be deemed to have predeceased the plaintiff under Probate Code §259. “The court may construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion or special demurrer is not meritorious and cause for its denial and, in the case of a demurrer, as a waiver of all grounds not supported.” (CRC 3.1113(a))
Defendant also moves to strike only the reference to “punitive damages” in the Prayer at paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. Where allegations are as to punitive damages, they are governed by Civil Code § 3294 which requires plaintiff to plead malice, oppression, or fraud in order to sustain a claim for punitive damages. Hall v. Berkell (1955) 130 Cal.App.2d 800, 804 [no basis to award punitive damages because complaint contains no allegations of malice, oppression, or fraud, nor any demand for exemplary damages]. Conclusory characterization of defendant’s conduct as intentional, willful, and fraudulent is a patently insufficient statement of “oppression, fraud, or malice” within the meaning of §3294. (Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 872.)
Defendant contends that sufficient facts are not pled. However, plaintiff alleges that the Defendant “has been converting assets belonging to those trusts to his own personal use.”(Complaint at ¶15) The Complaint also alleges “Defendant took or assisted in taking, secreting, appropriating, obtaining, or retaining Kathleen’s real and personal property as described herein.” (Complaint at ¶20) These allegations provide adequate specificity to support the punitive damage allegations for the pleading stage.
Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice pursuant to Evid. Code §452(d)&(h) of the (1) “2017 Amendment to Survivor’s Trust of The Halsey Family Trust.” and (2) “Health Care Directive and Power of Attorney for Health Care for Kathleen Mavourneen Halsey is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s Objections To Evidence are DENIED.
Defendant to file an answer to plaintiff’s complaint within 21 days.
Plaintiff to give notice.