Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 23SMCV02581, Date: 2024-12-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV02581, Date: 2024-12-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV02581 Hearing Date: December 12, 2024 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Doe v. Edward Bass Films, Case no. 23SMCV02581

Hearing date December 12, 2024

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Doe’s Demurrer with MTS to FACC

Plaintiff Jane Doe sues defendant Bass for assault and battery arising from alleged sexual encounters between defendant and then-minor plaintiff. Defendant cross-complained against plaintiff, plaintiff’s parents, Hilary Lewis and her parents. Defendant filed a FACC 10/18/24. Plaintiff demurs to the FACC and moves to strike the FACC in its entirety as well as defendant’s prayer for punitive damages.

Plaintiff’s Demurrer to the FAC

“The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the complaint as a matter of law.” Holiday Matinee, Inc. v. Rambus, Inc. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1413, 1420. A complaint “is sufficient if it alleges ultimate rather than evidentiary facts,” Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550, but plaintiff must allege essential facts “with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficient to acquaint [the] defendant with the nature, source and extent” of the plaintiff’s claim. Doheny Park Terrace Homeowners Ass’n., Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exchange (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1099.

Plaintiff generally demurs to the entire FACC as uncertain. Plaintiff argues defendant fails to establish facts and instead merely makes allegations. This argument is unavailing; allegations are sufficient for the demurrer stage of a proceeding. Doe, supra.

Plaintiff demurs to the first COA for fraud as insufficiently pled. To state a cause of action for fraud, defendant must allege: (1) a false representation by the defendant; (2) knowledge of its falsity; (3) intent to induce reliance; (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage. Fraud claims must be pled with particularity. Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal. App. 3d 59, 73.

Defendant alleges plaintiff knowingly used a fake driver’s license to misrepresent her age to defendant and induce him into having sexual interactions with her to subsequently blackmail defendant. FACC paras. 9-12. Defendant alleges subsequent emotional, financial and professional harms. FACC para. 14. These allegations are sufficient upon demurrer.

Plaintiff demurs to the second COA for extortion as improper and insufficient. The COA is proper; California recognizes a civil COA for extortion under common law with the same elements as established by Cal. Pen. Code §518. Civil extortion has three elements: (1) the individual making the threat knew it to be wrong; (2) the threat included a demand for money, property or services; and (3) the victim complied with the demand. Cal. Pen. Code §518.

Defendant alleges plaintiff coerced him into making payments with the threat of police reports and legal action after deceiving defendant as to her age. FACC paras. 9-12, 20-21. Defendant alleges he subsequently gave plaintiff money and property. FACC para. 21. These allegations are sufficient upon demurrer.

Plaintiff demurs to the third COA for conspiracy to commit fraud as vague and insufficient. Under California law, conspiracy is not an independent cause of action but rather a legal doctrine that imposes liability on individuals who agree to commit a tortious act. Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 503, 511. To state a claim for conspiracy to commit fraud defendant must allege: (1) the formation and operation of a conspiracy, (2) an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, (3) the defendant’s knowledge of and intent to participate in the conspiracy, and (4) resulting damage. CACI No. 3600.

Defendant alleges plaintiff and Lewis formed a conspiracy to knowingly create false accusations and fabricate police reports to defraud defendant via blackmail payments. FACC paras. 9-12, 23-24. These allegations are sufficient upon demurrer.

Plaintiff demurs to the fourth COA for filing a false police report as improper. A false police report can give rise to a civil cause of action when filed maliciously with the intent to cause harm. See Moore v. Brewster (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 932, 949; Valencia v. Adams (2021) 58 Cal.App.5th 417, 425. Defendant alleges plaintiff filed a false police report with the intent to cause defendant emotional harm and to serve as leverage for financial blackmail. FACC paras. 26-27. These allegations are sufficient.

Plaintiff demurs to the fifth COA for abuse of process as insufficient. To state a claim for abuse of process, defendant must allege: (1) an ulterior motive by the defendant in using legal process, and (2) a willful act in the use of that process that is improper in the regular conduct of proceedings. CACI No. 1520; Oren Royal Oaks Venture v. Greenberg, Bernhard, Weiss & Karma, Inc. (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 1157, 1168-69.

Defendant alleges plaintiff improperly filed a police report to harass and blackmail defendant. FACC para. 29. These allegations are sufficient.

Plaintiff demurs to the sixth COA for defamation as insufficient. To state a cause of action for defamation defendant must allege: (1) a false statement of fact about the plaintiff; (2) publication of that statement to a third party; (3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and (4) damage to the plaintiff’s reputation or resulting harm. CACI Nos. 1700 and 1704; Smith v. Maldonado (1999) 72 Cal. App. 4th 637, 645.

Defendant alleges plaintiff knowingly made false statements to third parties that damaged defendant's business and reputation. FACC paras. 11, 13. These allegations are sufficient.

Plaintiff demurs to the seventh COA for IIED as insufficient. To state a claim for IIED, defendant must allege: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant; (2) intent to cause, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (3) severe emotional distress; and (4) causation. CACI No. 1600; Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal. 4th 1035, 1050-51.

Defendant alleges plaintiff’s false accusations and police reports were outrageous, intentional and caused defendant emotional distress. FACC paras. 10-14, 35-36. These allegations are sufficient.

Plaintiff demurs to the eighth COA for NIED as insufficient. NIED is not an independent tort but rather a variant of negligence, requiring the standard elements of duty, breach, causation, and damages. Burgess v. Superior Court, (1992) 2 Cal. 4th 1064, 1072; CACI No. 1620.

Defendant has not alleged that plaintiff owed defendant a duty of care. This is a necessary allegation. Defendant’s eighth COA is deficient.

Plaintiff demurs to the ninth COA for identity misrepresentation as improper and not legally cognizable. There is no COA for identity misrepresentation under California law.

Plaintiff demurs to the tenth COA for theft as insufficient. To establish a civil claim for theft, defendant must allege that plaintiff wrongfully took property with the intent to permanently deprive defendant of its use or value. Cal. Penal Code § 484.

Defendant alleges plaintiff took money from defendant via false pretenses with no intent to return it. FACC paras. 44-45. These allegations are sufficient.

Plaintiff demurs to the eleventh COA for unjust enrichment as improper. California courts have consistently held that unjust enrichment is a principle underlying the equitable remedy of restitution rather than a standalone claim. Durell v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 1350, 1370.

Plaintiff demurs to the twelfth COA for conversion as insufficient. To establish a claim for conversion defendant must allege: (1) ownership or right to possession of property, (2) plaintiff’s wrongful act or disposition of the property, interfering with the possession, and (3) damages resulting from the interference. CACI No. 2100; Fremont Indem. Co. v. Fremont Gen. Corp. (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 97, 119.

Defendant alleges plaintiff exercised intentional control over defendant’s wealth and property depriving him of rightful ownership. FACC para. 50. Defendant fails to allege any specific acts of control or disposition against plaintiff. This is insufficient.

Plaintiff demurs to the thirteenth COA for negligent supervision as insufficient. To establish a claim for negligent supervision, defendant must allege: (1) the parent (or guardian) had a duty to supervise or control the child, (2) the parent knew or should have known of the child’s propensity for the alleged wrongful conduct, (3) the parent failed to adequately supervise the child, and (4) this failure caused harm to defendant. CACI No. 426; Roman Catholic Bishop v. Superior Court (1996) 42 Cal. App. 4th 1556, 1565.

Defendant alleges plaintiff’s parents had a duty to supervise plaintiff, plaintiff’s parents should have known plaintiff had a propensity for using fake driver’s licenses, plaintiff’s parents failed to supervise plaintiff despite that knowledge and this failure caused defendant harm. FACC paras. 10-14, 53-55. These allegations are sufficient.

Plaintiff’s demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend with regards to the eighth, ninth, eleventh and twelfth COAs. OVERRULED as to the other causes of action.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike

To obtain punitive damages, plaintiff must prove oppression, fraud or malice. Cal. Civ. Code §3294(a). Facts giving rise to a claim for punitive damages must be pleaded specifically – vague or conclusory allegations are insufficient. G.D. Searle & Company v. Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 29. Conclusory requests for punitive damages without factual support are subject to a motion to strike. E.g., Cyrus v. Haveson (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 306, 316-317; Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 164. Recklessness or negligence, even gross negligence, are insufficient to support an award of punitive damage – carelessness or ignorance are not enough. Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 82, 88. On a motion to strike, allegations must be treated as true. E.g., Clauson v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.

Plaintiff moves to strike punitive damages. The court addressed plaintiff’s claims regarding legal sufficiency and proper pleadings via plaintiff’s demurrer. The court will consider plaintiff’s motion to strike with regard to defendant's prayer for punitive damages.

Plaintiff argues defendant failed to plead facts sufficient to demonstrate oppression, fraud or malice. Defendant pled fraud as the first COA of the FACC. Defendant alleged plaintiff knowingly used a fake driver’s license to misrepresent her age to defendant to induce him into having sexual interactions with her and subsequently blackmailed defendant. FACC paras. 9-12. Defendant alleges subsequent emotional, financial and professional harms. FACC para. 14.

On a motion to strike, as on demurrer, all allegations must be treated as true. Clauson, supra. Taken at face-value, defendant alleged the necessary elements of fraud and intentional wrongdoing against plaintiff to sustain a prayer for punitive damages. DENIED.