Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV03364, Date: 2024-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV03364    Hearing Date: January 9, 2024    Dept: 6

CASE NAME:  Lei Song, et al. v. Yunliang Li, et al.

Defendants Dandan Li & Yunliang Li’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Complaint 

TENTATIVE RULING

The Court DENIES the motion to strike in its entirety. Defendants are ordered to file and serve an Answer to the Complaint within 10 calendar days. 

             Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order. 

BACKGROUND

This is a breach of contract and fraud action. On October 31, 2023, plaintiffs Lei Song, Cheng Yang, Zihang Zhou, and Wanxiang Lu (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this action against defendants Yunliang Li, Dandan Li, LSY Food, Inc. (collectively, Defendants) and Does 1 to 50, alleging causes of action for breach of contract, common count – open book account, common count – account stated, fraud – false promise, fraud – intentional misrepresentation, fraud – negligent misrepresentation, conversion, unfair business practices, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, conspiracy, failure to pay wages, missed meal periods, failure to pay wages for rest breaks, unpaid wages (overtime), failure to maintain required records, and failure to comply with Labor Code section 226. 

On December 5, 2023, Defendants Dandan Li and Yunliang Li (collectively, Moving Parties) filed the instant motion to strike portions of Plaintiffs’ complaint. On December 13, 2023, Plaintiffs opposed the motion. Moving Parties did not file a reply. 

LEGAL STANDARD

“Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof, but this time limitation shall not apply to motions specified in subdivision (e).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(2).) “The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” (Id., § 436.)

PRELIMINARY ISSUES

              Moving Parties’ moving papers exceed ten pages but contain no table of contents or table of authorities and thereby fail to comply with Rule 3.1113, subdivision (f) of the California Rules of Court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113, subd. (f).) Nevertheless, the Court exercises its discretion to still consider the motion, but admonishes Moving Parties to comply with the requirements of the California Rules of Court going forward. 

DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5, subdivision (a), Moving Parties were required to meet and confer telephonically or in person before bringing this motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a).) The Court finds Moving Parties’ efforts to meet and confer insufficient, as there is no evidence they met and conferred telephonically or in person. (Dong Decl., ¶¶ 1-2.) Nevertheless, the Court may not deny the motion to strike for failure to adequately meet and confer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a)(4).) The Court admonishes Moving Parties to comply with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure going forward. 

Breach of Contract, Fraud, Conversion, and Unjust Enrichment Claims

“A notice of motion to strike a portion of a pleading must quote in full the portions sought to be stricken except where the motion is to strike an entire paragraph, cause of action, count, or defense. Specifications in a notice must be numbered consecutively.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1322, subd. (a).)           

Although not raised in Plaintiffs’ opposition, the Court notes that the moving papers do not quote in full the portions of the Complaint that Moving Parties seek to strike per Rule 3.1322, subdivision (a) of the California Rules of Court. While some portions of the moving papers quote certain paragraphs within the Complaint, they are neither contained in a notice nor numbered consecutively per Rule 3.1322, subdivision (a) of the California Rules of Court, thus making it unclear which portions of the Complaint Moving Parties seek to strike. The Court declines to do Moving Parties’ work for them with respect to determining which portions of the Complaint to strike. 

Moreover, Moving Parties’ general requests to strike allegations regarding breach of contract, fraud, conversion or unjust enrichment are improper not only for their lack of clarity, (see Moving Papers, 7:11-13), they are also improper because they effectively seek to strike entire causes of action, which is improper on a motion to strike, (Ferraro v. Camarlinghi (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 509, 528 [failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is grounds for a general demurrer, not a motion to strike]). Additionally, the moving papers do not contain a notice; rather, they contain only a memorandum of points and authorities and supporting declaration. 

Furthermore, the Court reads the moving papers as attempting to resolve factual disputes, which is improper at the pleading stage. (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255 [“The Court assumes the truth of the matters asserted in a pleading for purposes of a motion to strike.”]; see also Panterra GP, Inc. v. Superior Court of Kern County (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 697, 709 [“A demurrer is simply not the appropriate procedure for determining the truth of disputed facts.”]) 

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the motion to strike as it pertains to Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract, fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment. 

Punitive Damages

To survive a motion to strike an allegation of punitive damages, the ultimate facts showing entitlement to such relief must be pleaded by a plaintiff. (Blegen v. Superior Court (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 959, 963.) The Court assumes the truth of the matters asserted in a pleading for purposes of a motion to strike. (Clauson, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at p. 1255.) 

Moving Parties seek to strike Plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages on the purported grounds that the Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to support a request for punitive damages. The Court disagrees. 

As noted above, the Court declines to strike Plaintiffs’ fraud claims and allegations for the reasons set forth above. Thus, Plaintiffs’ fraud claims provide grounds for Plaintiffs’ punitive damage claims. (See Civ. Code § 3294, subd. (a).) 

Moreover, as Plaintiffs correctly contend, “[i]n the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) The Court reads the Complaint as alleging that Defendants engaged in a scheme to take advantage of Plaintiffs’ marketing efforts and profit from those efforts without remuneration to Plaintiffs. (See, e.g., Compl., ¶ 71.) Liberally construed, this is sufficient for purposes of a motion to strike. 

Therefore, the Court DENIES the motion to strike as it pertains to punitive damages. 

Scandalous Matters

Moving Parties seek to strike certain portions of the Complaint on the grounds that they contain “scandalous matters.” (Moving Papers, 11:17-12:16.) The Court declines to strike these allegations for the same reasons set forth above, namely that Moving Parties are seeking to resolve factual disputes here, which are improper at this stage. (Clauson, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at p. 1255; see also Panterra GP, Inc., supra, 74 Cal.App.5th at p. 709.) Moving Parties also provide little explanation as to what purportedly makes these allegations “scandalous.” Any allegations regarding threats or other allegations of wrongdoing contained in the Complaint would be protected by the litigation privilege. (See People ex rel. Gallegos v. Pacific Lumber Co. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 950, 958 [the litigation privilege “privilege applies to any communication (1) made in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings; (2) by litigants or other participants authorized by law; (3) to achieve the objects of the litigation; and (4) that have some connection or logical relation to the action. [Citation.]” (People ex rel. Gallegos v. Pac. Lumber Co. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 950, 958.) 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to strike as it pertains to “scandalous” allegations in the Complaint. 

Irrelevant Matters

Moving Parties also seek to strike certain portions of the Complaint on the grounds that they contain irrelevant matter. The Court declines to do so here because the Court does not find the allegations identified here, namely paragraphs 55, 90, and 108, to be irrelevant. Moving Parties also do not explain what purportedly makes these allegations irrelevant. Additionally, Moving Parties only identify “some” purportedly irrelevant matters, (Moving Papers, 13:3), which necessarily means there are other allegations in the Complaint that are purportedly irrelevant which Moving Parties fail to quote and number consecutively per Rule 3.1322, subdivision (a) of the California Rules of Court. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the motion to strike with respect to irrelevant matters. 

Attorney’s Fees

“A party may not recover attorney fees unless expressly authorized by statute or contract.” (Hom v. Petrou (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 459, 464; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10) [“The following items are allowable as costs under Section 1032: (10) Attorney’s fees, when authorized by any of the following: (A) Contract. (B) Statute. (C) Law.”]) 

Moving Parties seek to strike Plaintiffs’ requests for attorney’s fees on the grounds that no statute or law entitles Plaintiff to attorney’s fees here. The Court again disagrees. Although not mentioned in Plaintiffs’ opposition, the Complaint contains causes of action based on alleged labor code violations, which provide for recovery of attorney’s fees. (See, e.g., Lab. Code § 1194, subd. (a); Id. § 226, subd. (h).) 

Therefore, the Court DENIES the motion to strike with respect to attorney’s fees. 

CONCLUSION

The Court DENIES the motion to strike in its entirety. Defendants are ordered to file and serve an Answer to the Complaint within 10 calendar days. 

             Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.