Judge: Loren G. Freestone, Case: 37-2023-00025920-CU-OR-CTL, Date: 2023-09-15 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 14, 2023

09/15/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-64 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Loren G. Freestone

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other Real Property Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00025920-CU-OR-CTL ROMERO VS GOUGOULAS [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING Defendant Constantine Gougoulas's motion to strike the prayer for attorney fees from Plaintiffs James Romero and Lilybeth-Marie Romero's complaint is DENIED.

A complaint need not include a prayer for statutory or contractual attorney fees when such fees will only be sought as an element of costs, as opposed to damages. (See Carlsbad Police Officers Assn. v. City of Carlsbad (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 135, 142, fn. 3; Faton v. Ahmedo (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1169; Snatchko v. Westfield LLC (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 469, 497; Chinn v. KMR Property Management (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 175, 194.) As it is not required in the first place, a prayer for such attorney fees cannot be struck on the basis that the complaint fails to sufficiently allege an entitlement to them. (See Snatchko, supra, 187 Cal.App.4th at p. 497 ['As there was no requirement they be pled at all, the trial court erred in striking [the plaintiff's] prayer for attorney fees based on a failure to adequately plead their basis']; see also Camenisch v. Superior Court (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1689, 1699 ['the court was not required to strike the prayer [for attorney fees] before [the plaintiff] has had a full opportunity to determine, through discovery, whether a basis for recovery exists'].) The motion to strike is therefore denied. Gougoulas shall file an answer within 10 days.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3000302  31