Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 22STCV13788, Date: 2023-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13788    Hearing Date: May 16, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion for an order permitting discovery of Defendants’ financial condition is DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

On 4/26/2022, Plaintiff Aaron Kohanim filed suit against Faniea Tuchmayer, trustee of the Tuchmayer Trust dated 5/19/2014, Sara Putterflam, Dorit Tuchmayer, and Tally Lippman, alleging: (1) breach of warranty of habitability; (2) tortious breach of implied warranty of habitability; (3) negligence; (4) breach of contract; (5) nuisance; (6) constructive eviction; (7) violation of the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance; (8) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment; (9) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (10) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (11) violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act; (12) violation of the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance – Harassment.

Now, Plaintiff moves for an order permitting discovery of Defendants’ financial condition.

Legal Standard  

A plaintiff may obtain pre-trial discovery into a defendant’s financial condition, as well as profits from the wrongful conduct at issue, “upon motion by the plaintiff…if the court finds, on the basis of the supporting and opposing affidavits presented, that the plaintiff has established that there is a substantial probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim [for punitive damages].” (Civ. Code., § 3295, subds. (a) & (c).) 

Discussion

            Plaintiff argues that there is a substantial probability he will succeed on his punitive damages claim against Defendants and is therefore entitled to seek discovery of Defendants’ financial condition and profits under section 3295(c) of the Civil Code.

In deciding motions under section 3295(c), Courts “interpret the words ‘substantial probability’ to mean ‘very likely’ or ‘a strong likelihood’ just as their plain meaning suggests.” (Jabro v. Super. Ct. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 754, 758.) The Court may grant such an order at any time. (Civ. Code., § 3295, subd. (c).) This “weighing is not the traditional fact-finding process and shall not be considered to be a determination on the merits of the claim or any defense thereto.” (Guardado v. Superior Court (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 91,98). Accordingly, Plaintiff can conduct pre-trial discovery of Defendants’ financial condition and profits if it is “very likely” that Plaintiff will succeed on his claims that Defendants’ intentional torts were committed with “oppression, fraud, or malice.” (Ibid.; id. at § 3294, subd. (a); see Jabro, at p. 758.)

Here, Plaintiff points to a number of allegations to meet his burden of his proof. However, the only evidentiary basis cited in support is Plaintiff’s own Complaint. (See Kohanim Decl.) If allegations in a Complaint were all that were required to meet Civil Code section 3295’s evidentiary standard, every Plaintiff with a well-pled Complaint would meet the standard, given that the Court must accept well-pled allegations as true at the pleading stage. This is not what is contemplated here. Rather, to prevail on this motion, Plaintiff must submit a motion “supported by appropriate affidavits….” (Civ. Code., § 3295.) A single affidavit which only cites one’s own Complaint as evidentiary support for the assertions made is insufficient to meet Plaintiff’s burden.

Plaintiff must submit a motion supported by appropriate affidavits, i.e., evidentiary proof beyond Complaint allegations.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for an order permitting discovery of Defendants’ financial condition is denied, without prejudice.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  May    , 2023

   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.