Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV01991, Date: 2023-09-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV01991    Hearing Date: March 4, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      March 4, 2024                                     TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         FRANCIS CHUNG YU and WEI MEEI YU, v. TIENSTAR INVESTMENTS LLC, a California limited liability company, KEVIN TIEN LEE, an individual; LINDA T. HUYNH LEE aka LINDA T. LEE aka LINDA HUYNH, an individual; GOODYEAR CONSTRUCTION CORP. aka GOODYEAR CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, a California corporation; SAMI GEORGE BITAR, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive.  

CASE NO.:                 23AHCV01991

MOTION TO STRIKE

MOVING PARTY:               Defendants Tienstar Investments LLC, Kevin Tien Lee, and Linda T. Lee (“Moving Parties”)

RESPONDING PARTY:      Plaintiffs Francis Chung Yu and Wei Meei Yu (“Plaintiffs”)

SERVICE:                              Filed January 5, 2024

OPPOSITION:                       Filed February 20, 2024

REPLY:                                   Filed February 26, 2024

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Francis Chung Yu and Wei Meei Yu (“Plaintiffs”) claims that Defendants Tienstar Investments LLC, Kevin Tien Lee, Linda T. Huynh Lee, Goodyear Construction Corporation, and Sami Georges Bitar trespassed onto on Plaintiff’s property located at 801 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California (“Subject Property”) and engaged in unconsented to construction. Plaintiffs filed this complaint on August 29, 2023, alleging four causes of action for (1) trespass/encroachment to land, (2) damages to lang, (3) temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction, and (4) ejectment.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages is GRANTED with 20 days leave to amend.

LEGAL STANDARD

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike a pleading or any part thereof.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1).)  The court may, upon a 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 California law, a court rule, or an order of the court.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).)  An immaterial or irrelevant allegation is one that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense; is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense; or a demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., 431.10, subd. (b).)  The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)   

DISCUSSION

             Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages.

            Punitive damages may be imposed where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.  (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a). A plaintiff seeking punitive damages “must include specific factual allegations showing that defendant's conduct was oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious to support a claim for punitive damages. [Citation.] Punitive damages my not be pleaded generally.” (Today’s IV, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1137, 1193.)

            Code of Civil Procedure section 3294, subdivision (c), provides definitions for each grounds to bring punitive damages. “ ‘Malice’ means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 3294, subd. (c)(1).) “ ‘Oppression’ means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 3294, subd. (c)(2).) “ ‘Fraud’ means 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. (Code Civ. Proc. § 3294, subd. (c)(1).)

A cause of action for “trespass also support[s] the award of exemplary damages.” (Cyrus v. Haveson (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 306, 316.) The issue presented is whether Plaintiffs have alleged facts sufficient to sustain a claim for punitive damages. The court concludes that Plaintiffs have not.

In their complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants began improvements on Defendants’ property. (Complaint ¶¶ 12-14.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ contractors entered onto Plaintiffs’ property without permission to perform improvements to Defendants’ property, which included building a scaffolding on Plaintiffs’ property. (Id. ¶¶ 15-16.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants stated that they had not instructed their workers to build scaffolding on Plaintiffs’ property but ultimately decided to continue to work on Plaintiffs’ property. (Id. ¶¶ 17-19.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have responded with untruths, misrepresentation, bullying and threats. (Id. ¶ 21.)

Plaintiffs’ allegations, if proven, at best demonstrate that Defendants or their agents intentionally encroached onto Plaintiffs’ property. However, to establish malice, Plaintiffs must allege that Defendants intended to cause Plaintiffs injury or engaged in despicable conduct with a willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiffs’ safety. (Code Civ. Proc. § 3294, subd. (c)(1).) Plaintiffs have not alleged so in the present case. Further, Plaintiffs allegations that Defendants engaged in “untruths” and “misrepresentations” are too generalized to support a claim for punitive damages based on fraud, which requires specific factual allegations. (Today’s IV, Inc., supra, 3 Cal.App.5th at p. 1193.)

Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages is granted.

CONCLUSION

Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages is GRANTED with  20 days leave to amend.

            Moving party to give notice.

Dated:   March 4, 2024                                   ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org