Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV00663, Date: 2023-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00663, Date: 2023-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00663 Hearing Date: December 20, 2023 Dept: C

Southern California Curling v. Dynamic Hodlings

CASE NO.: 22NWCV00663

HEARING: 12/20/23 @ 9:30 AM

Defendant Dynamic Holdings, LLC’s Demurrer is OVERRULED. Defendant’s Motion to Strike is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part with 20 days leave to amend.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Defendant Dynamic Holdings, LLC (Defendant) demurs to Plaintiff Southern California Curling Center, Inc.’s (Plaintiff) First Amended Complaint (FAC) and moves to strike certain portions of the FAC.

Background

Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging Defendant violated the lease agreement by refusing to approve proposed subleases to a commercial lease during the period California and Los Angeles COVID protections were in place. Plaintiff brings causes of action for 1) Breach of contract (lease) 2) Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage 3) Inducing Breach of Contract 4) Declaratory Relief 5) Breach of Good Faith and Fair Dealing 6) Violation of Covid Regulations 7) Retaliatory Rejection of Sublease.

Judicial Notice

Defendant’s requests for judicial notice are granted.

Legal Standard

The party against whom a complaint has been filed may object to the pleading, by demurrer, on several grounds, including the ground that the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (CCP § 430.10(e).) A party may demur to an entire complaint, or to any causes of action stated therein. (CCP § 430.50(a).)

Motions to strike are used to reach defects or objections to pleadings which are not challengeable by demurrer (i.e., words, phrases, prayer for damages, etc.). (CCP §§ 435, 436 & 437.) A motion to strike lies only where the pleading has irrelevant, false or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws. (C.C.P. § 436.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (C.C.P. § 437.)

Discussion

Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s FAC on the grounds that each cause of action fails to state a cause of action because Defendant did not violate the lease by unreasonably withholding consent to sublease. The Lease Agreement states at Paragraph 12.1(f) that the “Lessor may reasonably withhold consent to a proposed assignment or subletting if Lessee is in Default at the time consent is required.” (FAC, Ex. A.) Here, Plaintiff alleges Defendant withheld consent without cause. (FAC, ¶ 20.) The Court cannot, at this stage of the proceedings, determine as a matter of law whether Defendant “reasonably” withheld consent within the meaning of Paragraph 12.1(f). The Court cannot weigh evidence as to the intent of the contracting parties on demurrer. Therefore, Defendant’s Demurrer is overruled.

Defendant argues that Causes of Action One through Five should be stricken because Plaintiff defaulted on the lease and, thus, Defendant could reasonably withhold consent to approve a sublease. However, as above, the court cannot resolve issues of fact, such as the intent of the contracting parties, on a motion to strike. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Strike Causes of Action One through Five is denied.

In Paragraph Three of the Prayer for Relief, Plaintiff claims reasonable costs and attorney fees. Defendant’s Motion to Strike Paragraph Three is denied because Plaintiff has properly alleged a Breach of Contract Cause of Action.

Defendant argues that the Sixth and Seventh Causes of Action should be stricken because they are not causes of action at law. Plaintiff’s Sixth Cause of Action for Violation of the Los Angeles County COVID Resolutions fails because the Resolution’s protection for commercial tenants ended January 31, 2022 and Defendant served the notice to quit on February 2, 2022. (FAC, ¶¶ 55-56 and Ex. C. ¶ VI(A)(1).) Additionally, Plaintiff’s Seventh Cause of Action fails to state a recognizable claim. The Cause of Action states that Defendant refused to allow Plaintiff to sublease in retaliation for Plaintiff’s COVID Resolutions protections. However, Plaintiff fails to cite any case law or statute which authorizes a claim for damages for the alleged retaliatory refusal to sublet. Thus, Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Sixth and Seventh Causes of Action is granted.

In Paragraph Four of the Prayer for Relief, Plaintiff claims damages in the amount of $5,000 per day for violation of the COVID Resolutions. Defendant’s Motion to Strike Paragraph Four is granted because Plaintiff’s Complaint does not properly allege a claim for violation of the COVID Resolutions.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s Complaint is devoid of any ultimate facts which would support a claim for punitive damages. “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. Sup. Ct..(1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 1253, 1255.) Here, Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s actions were “malicious willful and intending to harm Plaintiff” and “willful, malicious intentional and wanton.” (Compl. ¶¶ 29 and 48.) None of these allegations provide sufficient ultimate facts which show entitlement to punitive damages. Thus, Defendant’s Motion to Strike Paragraphs 29 and 48 of the Complaint and Paragraph Two of the Prayer for Relief is granted.

Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff amended the complaint once after Defendant filed an initial demurrer and motion to strike but before hearing on the matter. Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successfully stating a cause of action, even where parties do not request leave to amend in the trial court. (Schulz v. Neovi Data Corp. (2007) 152 Cal. App. 4th 86, 92.) Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend is granted because this is the Court’s first ruling on the merits of its Pleadings.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Demurrer is OVERRULED. Defendant’s Motion to Strike is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth above. Plaintiff is granted 20 days leave to amend from the date of this Order.