Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

This is an inverse condemnation and negligence case.  Defendant City of Beverly Hills (the “City”) was installing and repairing water lines at or near 1126 Coldwater Canyon Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90210 (the “Project”).  The City hired Defendant Williams Pipeline Contractors, Inc. (“Williams”) to do excavation work relating to the Project.  Plaintiff Southern California Edison (“SCE”) claims the Project resulted in damage to its underground cable and conduit.   

This action ensued.  The first cause of action alleges inverse condemnation against the City, claiming that the damage to SCE’s equipment, resulted in a “taking” of property without just compensation. The second cause of action seeks cost of repair under California Public Utilities Code §7952 against the City and Williams, and alleges that their negligent actions caused damage to SCE’s equipment, necessitating repair costs. The third cause of action alleges a violation of Government Code §4216.4, based on Defendants’ alleged failure to comply with statutory requirements while performing excavation work. The fourth cause of action claims property damage for negligence and vicarious liability against Williams, based on Williams’ alleged reckless actions during the Project.  The fifth cause of action alleges trespass to chattels against Williams, asserting that it wrongfully and intentionally damaged SCE’s equipment without consent. The sixth cause of action under California Public Utilities Code §7951 claims Defendants’ willful and malicious conduct caused significant damage, entitling SCE to three times the amount of actual damages.  

This hearing is on Williams’ motion to strike SCE’s fifth and sixth causes of action.  Williams argues that (1) the trespass claim fails because SCE has not alleged facts showing intentional, substantial ongoing interference, and (2) the section 7951 claim fails because there are no facts alleged that Williams acted willfully and maliciously.  

Code Civ. Proc. § 435.5 requires that before the filing of a motion to strike, the moving party “shall meet and confer in person or by telephone” with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to motion to strike for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the motion to strike.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 435.5(a).)  The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc. §435.5(a)(2).)  Thereafter, the moving party shall file and serve a declaration detailing its meet and confer efforts.  (Code Civ. Proc. §435.5(a)(3).)  Williams has failed to submit any declaration.  Accordingly, the Court continues the hearing on the motion to strike to March 21, 2025 at 8:30 a.m., to allow Williams time to file the required meet and confer declaration.    

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: March 4, 2025 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court