Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 22BBCV00448, Date: 2022-08-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV00448    Hearing Date: August 12, 2022    Dept: A

ALLEGATIONS:

Yasam Legacy, LLC ("Plaintiff") filed a commercial unlawful detainer suit against Papanicolaou Enterprises, d.b.a. Noho Diner ("Defendant") on June 20, 2022.

HISTORY:

The Court received the Motion to Strike filed by Defendant on July 20, 2022.

The Court received an Ex Parte Application filed by Plaintiff on August 3, 2022 and granted Plaintiff’s request to have the ex parte papers serve as Plaintiff’s opposition to the Motion to Strike. The Court otherwise directed Plaintiff to file an opposition by August 8, 2022; and Defendant to file a reply by August 10, 2022. The Court has not received any further opposition or reply. The Court will thus consider the ex parte papers as Plaintiff’s opposition.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Defendant moves to strike the Complaint.

ANALYSIS:

I.          LEGAL STANDARD

Motions to strike are used to reach defects or objections to pleadings that are not challengeable by demurrer, such as words, phrases, and prayers for damages. (See CCP §§435, 436, and 437.) The proper procedure to attack false allegations in a pleading is a motion to strike. (CCP § 436(a).) In granting a motion to strike made under CCP § 435, “[t]he court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435 [notice of motion to strike whole or part of complaint], or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.” (CCP § 436(a).) Irrelevant matters include immaterial allegations that are not essential to the claim or those not pertinent to or supported by an otherwise sufficient claim. (CCP § 431.10.) The court may also “[s]trike out 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.” (CCP § 436(b).)

To succeed on a motion to strike punitive damages allegations, it must be said as a matter of law that the alleged behavior was not so vile, base, or contemptible that it would not be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people. (Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal. App. 4th 1217, 1228-1229.) The statutory elements for punitive damages require that a defendant is guilty of “fraud, oppression, or malice.” (See Civ. Code § 3294(a).) Malice is conduct “intended by the defendant to cause injury to plaintiff, or despicable conduct that is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others.” (Civ. Code § 3294(c)(1).) “Oppression” means “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.” (Civ. Code § 3294(c)(2).) “Fraud” is “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.” (Civ. Code § 3294(c)(3).)

II.        MERITS

Defendant argues that the Unlawful Detainer Complaint is not verified and so violates CCP §§ 1166 and 446 because it is signed by a “Sam Yadegar,” who is represented only as Plaintiff’s “authorized agent.”

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that it is a limited liability company, and so does not have partners and is not required to appoint officers. Plaintiff asserts that LLC’s instead have members, that Yadegar is a member, and that the “authorized agent” box was checked because there was no option to select a member. Plaintiff argues that CCP § 446 speaks to corporations and is silent as to limited liability companies, and further allows for verification by an officer but does not require it.

CCP § 1166(a) provides that an unlawful detainer complaint must be verified.

CCP § 466(a) provides, in part: “When a corporation is a party, the verification may be made by any officer thereof.”

A limited liability company is a statutory entity formed under the Beverly-Killea Limited Liability Company Act of 1994 and made up of one of more members, who, together, own the entity.  Cal. Corp. Code § 17703.01 states that any member of and LLC is an agent of the LLC for the purposes of its business or affairs unless it is a manager managed LLC.  The Court accepts Plaintiff’s representation that Yadegar is one of two members of Plaintiff, a limited liability company, based on the Statement of Information filed with the Secretary of State, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Ex Parte Application, as well as Yadegar being a signatory to the lease attached to the Complaint. The Court has reviewed Defendant’s case law, which does not support any contention that an LLC member may not verify a complaint on the LLC’s behalf.

III.       CONCLUSION

The Court thus denies the instant motion.

---

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Defendant Papanicolaou Enterprises, Inc. d.b.a. Noho Diner’s Motion to Strike came on regularly for hearing on August 12, 2022, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTION TO STRIKE IS DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE:  August 12, 2022                               _______________________________

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge

                                                                        Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles