Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 24NNCV00846, Date: 2024-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV00846    Hearing Date: October 25, 2024    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Christopher Mandalian (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendants Narek Vardanyan, Niko Kravchenko, and Christopher Robert McReynolds each worked for Defendant McReynolds Vardanyan, LLC (“Law Firm”).  Plaintiff alleges that on August 18, 2022, he was subleasing office space from the Law Firm at 100 West Broadway, Suite 700 in Glendale, which is where the Law Firm is located.  He alleges that on that day, he was physically assaulted by Mr. Vardanyan and Mr. Kravchenko in Mr. Vardanyan’s office and that this attack was unprovoked and not in self-defense.  He alleges that he reported the assault to the Glendale Police Department.  Plaintiff alleges that when he returned to his office on August 19, 2022, his property was vandalized.  He alleges that on August 20, 2022, Mr. Vardanyan sent him obscene text messages in the Armenian language.  Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the incident, he expended money and resources to move to another office building. 

Plaintiff alleges that on October 26, 2023, he unsuccessfully sought a civil harassment restraining order against Mr. Vardanyan to keep him from going to Plaintiff’s new office building.  He alleges that Mr. Vardanyan then filed a lawsuit against him in Vardanyan v. Mandalian et al. (Case No. 23STCV27983) for defamation and malicious prosecution.  Plaintiff alleges that on March 6, 2024, he successfully had the malicious prosecution claim stricken via an anti-SLAPP motion. 

The first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed July 29, 2024, alleges causes of action for: (1) negligence; (2) malicious prosecution (CCP § 425.18); (3) assault; (4) battery; (5) IIED; and (6) conversion.

B.     Motion on Calendar

On September 24, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to strike portions of the FAC.

On October 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition brief. 

On October 18, 2024, Defendants filed a reply brief.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

            With the opposition papers, Plaintiff requests judicial notice of Exhibit 1, which includes a court ruling on an anti-SLAPP lawsuit heard on March 6, 2024 in Department 78 of the Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 23STCV27983, Narek Vardanyan v. Christopher Mandalian.  The request is granted.  (Evid. Code, § 452(d).) 

DISCUSSION

            Defendants Mr. Vardanyan, Mr. Kravchenko, Mr. McReynolds, and Law Firm move to strike the allegations for punitive damages from the complaint at paragraph 41 and the Prayer for Relief at paragraph 3. 

A complaint including a request for punitive damages must include allegations showing that the plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages.  (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.)  A claim for punitive damages cannot be pleaded generally and allegations that a defendant acted "with oppression, fraud and malice" toward plaintiff are insufficient legal conclusions to show that the plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages.  (Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 872.)  Specific factual allegations are required to support a claim for punitive damages.  (Id.)

Civil Code § 3294 authorizes a plaintiff to obtain an award of punitive damages when there is clear and convincing evidence that the defendant engaged in malice, oppression, or fraud.  Section 3294(c) defines the terms in the following manner:

(1)   "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.

(2)   "Oppression" means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.

(3)   "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. 

            Paragraph 41 of the complaint is alleged in connection with the 2^nd cause of action for malicious prosecution against Mr. Vardanyan, Mr. McReynolds, and the Law Firm.  In the 2^nd cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Vardanyan, Mr. McReynolds, and the Law Firm pursued a malicious prosecution action against Plaintiff in Case No. 23STCV27983, which concluded in a legal termination in Plaintiff’s favor via the granting of an anti-SLAPP motion.  (FAC, ¶¶37-39.)  Plaintiff alleges that the malicious prosecution claim was brought without probable cause and was initiated with malice with the express purpose of harming Plaintiff in his personal, business, and professional reputation.  (Id., ¶40.)  Paragraph 41 alleges:

The foregoing conduct of Defendants individually, or by and through their managing agents, was intended by the Defendants, and each of them, to cause injury to the Plaintiff or was despicable conduct carried on by the Defendants with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff, or which subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and safety, and was undertaken with Defendants’ prior knowledge, active consent and subsequent ratification and therefore constituted malice, oppression or fraud under Civil Code § 3294, thereby entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or make an example of Defendants.

(FAC, ¶41.)  

            As currently alleged, the allegations for punitive damages in the FAC are general and conclusory and fail to rise to the level of particularity required for a punitive damages claim.  Read together with the allegations of the 2^nd cause of action, paragraph 40 merely alleges bare allegations of malice, oppression, fraud, and/or despicable conduct.  Additional supporting facts showing how Defendants were malicious, oppressive, and/or fraudulent in their actions should be alleged.

            The motion to strike is granted with leave to amend. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendants’ motion to strike the allegations for punitive damages from the First Amended Complaint is granted with 20 days leave to amend.

Defendants shall provide notice of this order.

DATED: October 25, 2024                                                     ___________________________

                                                                                          John J. Kralik

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court