Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV39823, Date: 2022-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV39823    Hearing Date: October 4, 2022    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion to strike is GRANTED, with 15 days leave to amend.

            On 10/28/2021, Plaintiff Shirin Kheshti (Plaintiff) filed suit against Mehdi Soheili, All-Budget Insurance Agency, LLC, and Frontier Insurance Brokers, Inc. (collectively, Defendants), alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) breach of fiduciary duty; (4) accounting; (5) fraud; and (6) declaratory relief.

            Now, Defendant moves to strike portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

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 Code Civ Proc., §§ 435-437.)  A motion to strike can be made to strike irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading or to strike any pleading or part thereof not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule or order of the court.  (CCP § 436.) 

Discussion

            Defendant moves to strike all of Plaintiff’s allegations related to its claim for punitive damages.

The adequacy of a claim for punitive damages is properly tested by a motion to strike. (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 164.) Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (a) authorizes the recovery of punitive damages where the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, express or implied. 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. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1).) Oppression is despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights. (Id., subd. (c)(2).) Fraud means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the party of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury. (Id., subd. (c)(3).) 

            Here, Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot support a prayer for punitive damages because it is supported only by the breach of fiduciary duty claim, which he argues is inadequately pled.

The Court agrees. Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages is supported by the allegation that:

Defendant Soheili violated his fiduciary duties to the Plaintiff and the partnership. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Defendant Soheili violated his fiduciary duty by, inter alia: (1) acting in bad faith towards the Plaintiff; (2) failing to act in the best interests of his partner or the partnership; (3) placing his own self-interest above the interests of his partner and the partnership; (4) failing to properly manage the funds of the partnership; (5) using the partnership’s assets to pay for personal debts; (6) failing to remunerate Plaintiff pursuant to the parties’ Agreement; (7) using the assets of All-Budget to form Frontier without consideration to Plaintiff; (8) taking the profits of All-Budget and Frontier for himself and not distributing Plaintiff’s share to her; and (9) defrauding the Plaintiff.

            (FAC ¶ 37.)

Such an allegation is overly conclusory in that they are not accompanying by any facts which could show that Defendant engaged in any of this conduct. “In order to survive a motion to strike an allegation of punitive damages, the ultimate facts showing an entitlement to such relief must be pled by a plaintiff.” (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 1253, 1255.) Conclusory allegations, devoid of any factual assertions, are insufficient to support a conclusion that parties acted with oppression, fraud or malice. (Smith v. Sup. Ct. (1992) 10 Cal. App. 4th 1033, 1042.) Here, Plaintiff must allege facts which could show that Defendant engaged in this conduct, rather than merely allege that he did.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to strike is granted, with 15 days leave to amend.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  October    , 2022

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.