Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr., Case: 22SMCV01090, Date: 2023-01-31 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22SMCV01090 Hearing Date: January 31, 2023 Dept: 205
|
MOHAMMAD TEHRANI and
LAURA A. LAW, Plaintiffs, v. MANDEL PARKS, MANDEL PARKS REAL ESTATE
and DOES 1 to 20, Defendants. |
Case No.:
22SMCV01090 Hearing Date: January 31, 2023 [TENTATIVE]
order RE: Defendant mandel-parks demurrer and motion to
strike |
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Mandel-Parks erroneously sued as
Mandel Parks and Mandel Parks Real Estate
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs
Mohammad Tehrani and Laura Law
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs
Mohammad Tehrani and Laura Law allege Defendant Mandel Parks negligently caused
damage to them from July 11, 2020 to present at 1545 Brockton Ave., Apt. #18,
Los Angeles, Ca 90025. Their complaint
alleges in full: “Defendant’s caused intentional infliction of personal
injury/injuries to Plaintiff’s for many years and continuing to present day,
causing and allowing: severe physical injuries, severe emotional distress,
punitive damages and other harm, caused by intentional negligence and more; and
breach of contract, and more, and Premises Liabilities.”
This
hearing is on Defendant’s demurrer and motion to strike. Defendant argues the entire complaint is
subject to demurrer because it is ambiguous, unintelligible and uncertain and
fails to plead the essential elements of the claims alleged. Defendant also moves to strike the claim for
punitive damages because Plaintiff has failed to allege the factual predicates
of malice, oppression and fraud. Lastly,
Defendant moves to strike the complaint as to Laura Law, because Mohammad
Tehrani has signed the Complaint on her behalf, but he is not an attorney and
therefore cannot represent Law in this lawsuit.
LEGAL
STANDARD
“[A]
demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint.” (Lewis
v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.) A demurrer can be used only to challenge
defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters
outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (See Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co.
(2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 (in ruling on a demurrer, a court may not
consider declarations, matters not subject to judicial notice, or documents not
accepted for the truth of their contents).) For purposes of ruling on a demurrer, all
facts pleaded in a complaint are assumed to be true, but the reviewing court
does not assume the truth of conclusions of law. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hosp.
Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)
Further,
the court may, upon 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).) The court may also strike all or
any part of any 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, subd.
(b).) The grounds for a motion to strike
are that the pleading has irrelevant, false, or improper matter, or has not
been drawn or filed in conformity with laws.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) The
grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way
of judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)
Leave
to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful
amendment. (See Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349 (court
shall not “sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is any reasonable
possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment”); Kong v. City of
Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency (2002) 108 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1037 (“A
demurrer should not be sustained without leave to amend if the complaint,
liberally construed, can state a cause of action under any theory or if there
is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured by amendment.”); Vaccaro
v. Kaiman (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 761, 768 (“When the defect which justifies
striking a complaint is capable of cure, the court should allow leave to
amend.”).) The burden is on the
complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Blank
v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)
DISCUSSION
Demurrer
A complaint is subject to demurrer
where the pleading is uncertain or ambiguous and unintelligible. Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(f). “[D]emurrers for uncertainty are disfavored, and are granted only
if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably
respond.” (Mahan v. Charles W. Chan Ins. Agency, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 841, 848, fn. 3 [222 Cal. Rptr. 3d
360]; accord Lickiss v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.) “A
demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in
some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern
discovery procedures.” (Chen v. Berenjian (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 811,
822.)
“[U]nder our liberal pleading rules, where the complaint contains
substantive factual allegations sufficiently apprising defendant of the issues
it is being asked to meet, a demurrer for uncertainty should be overruled or
plaintiff given leave to amend.” (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2 [229 Cal. Rptr. 605]; accord, McBride v. Boughton (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th
379, 387 (“[W]e
ignore [e]rroneous or confusing labels … if the complaint pleads facts which
would entitle the plaintiff to relief.”; Saunders v. Cariss (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d
905, 908 (“[T]he
trial court is obligated to look past the form of a pleading to its substance.”).)
This is one of
those rare cases where a demurrer for uncertainty is appropriate. Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts to
support their conclusory allegations.
They simply recite a series of claims (“intentional negligence” “breach
of contract” “premises liabilities” “intentional infliction of personal
injuries”) and damages (“severe physical injuries” “severe emotional distress,”
“punitive damages”), without alleging the facts that would support each element
of the claim or each type of damage.
Accordingly, the
Court sustains Defendant’s demurrer on the ground that the complaint is
uncertain and fails to plead facts that would support the claims alleged. However, as the Court cannot say there is no
reasonable possibility that an amendment would cure the defects noted above, the
Court will grant Plaintiffs leave to amend the Complaint.
Motion to
Strike
Defendant moves to strike Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive
damages. Defendants argue Plaintiffs have only made conclusory
allegations that they are entitled to punitive damages without stating facts
supporting a finding of malice, oppression or fraud. The Court
agrees.
“In
order to survive a motion to strike an allegation of punitive damages, the
ultimate facts showing an entitlement to such relief must be pled by a
plaintiff.” (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.)
“The mere allegation an intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to
warrant an award of punitive damages. Not only must there be
circumstances of oppression, fraud or malice, but facts must be alleged in the
pleading to support such a claim.” (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984)
157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166 (citations omitted).) Allegations that merely
plead the statutory phraseology are wholly insufficient to state a basis for
recovery of punitive damages. (Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10
Cal.App.4th
1033, 1041.) Conclusory characterizations of defendant’s conduct as
willful, intentional or fraudulent is a patently insufficient statement of the
necessary factual grounds for punitive damages. (Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977)
73 Cal.App.3d 864, 872.)
To
establish “malice”, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) the defendant
intended to cause injury to plaintiff or (2) despicable conduct with a willful
and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. (Civ. Code § 3294(c)(1).). “[A]bsent an intent to injure the
plaintiff, malice requires more than a willful and conscious disregard of the
plaintiffs’ interest. The additional component of ‘despicable conduct’
must be found.” (College Hosp. Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8
Cal.4th
704, 725.) To establish “oppression,” Plaintiff must allege “despicable
conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious
disregard of that person’s rights.” (Id.) To establish
“fraud,” Plaintiffs must allege “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.” (Id.)
Malice
and oppression both include a finding of despicable conduct. “Despicable”
means conduct that is “so vile, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome
that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent
people.” (Scott v. Phoenix Schools, Inc. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 702, 715.)
“Such conduct has been described as having the character of outrage frequently
associated with [a] crime.” (Id.)
Here, Plaintiffs have not come close to alleging the facts
necessary to support a punitive damages claim.
Plaintiffs only allege entitlement to punitive damages and refer to
alleged intentional torts, without describing any conduct on the part of
Defendant, much less alleging that the conduct rises to the level of malice,
oppression or fraud.
Moreover, §3294
states that for a valid claim for punitive damages to be made against an
employer, the employer must have had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the
employee and employed him or her in conscious disregard of the rights or safety
of others “or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct.” “With
respect to a corporate employer, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard,
authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on
the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation.” Code Civ. Proc. §3294. There are no such allegations in the
Complaint.
Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to strike the
punitive damages claim, although the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend
as it is not clear that no amendment would cure the defect.
Defendant also moves to strike the entire complaint brought by Plaintiff
Laura Law. Plaintiff Tehrani has filed
and signed the Complaint on behalf of himself and Law. But Tehrani has not identified himself as an
attorney. While a person may represent
his or her own interests in legal proceedings, a nonlawyer may not represent
the interests of others. (J.W. v.
Sup. Ct. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 958, 969.) “No person shall practice law (for another) in
this State unless he is an active member of the state bar.” Abar v. Rogers (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d
862, 865 (citing Bus. & Prof. Code § 6125 and holding that pro per plaintiff should not have been
permitted to represent both himself and his wife as plaintiffs.) Accordingly, the Court also strikes the
entire Complaint as to Law, although the Court will allow leave to amend to
allow Plaintiffs the opportunity to correct their error and properly sign the
Complaint.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court SUSTAINS
Defendant Mandel Park’s demurrer to the entire complaint with leave to
amend and GRANTS its motion to strike with leave to amend. Plaintiffs have 30 days leave to amend.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 31, 2023 ___________________________
Edward
B. Moreton, Jr.
Judge
of the Superior Court