Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 24SMCV01389, Date: 2024-07-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV01389    Hearing Date: July 18, 2024    Dept: I

The motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 

Plaintiff filed this breach of contract action.  According to the FAC, the parties entered into a lease agreement for a term ending on June 30,2023.  Plaintiff claims that the premises were newly renovated but that defendant caused extensive damage.  Defendant has moved to strike plaintiff’s request for lost rental income and lost parking income.  Plaintiff concedes the latter but contests the former. 

The request for judicial notice is DENIED.  It is unnecessary to the court’s determination.

As to lost rental income, the motion is DENIED.  Defendant’s argument relies on facts extrinsic to the complaint.  Specifically, defendant claims no loss because plaintiff’s principal’s son is occupying the premises.  That is not in the FAC and so it is improper to consider now.  Even were it proper, that does not mean that there are no lost income damages.  It might or might not be a mitigating factor, but it does not eliminate the claim.

The court admonishes the defense to tone down the rhetoric.  In the court’s experience, the stronger the rhetoric, the weaker the case.  Thus far, that is how the court views this case.  Further, at this point there is no need for the court to consider billing rates.  The court has better things to do than to consider extraneous matters.

The motion is GRANTED as to the parking income.

Defendant has 3 court days to answer.  The short time period is deliberate.  While defendant may (of course) assert any affirmative defenses it believes are applicable, the court suggests (strongly) that any affirmative defenses asserted be ones that defendant believes, in good faith, may apply.  Defendant ought not march through the form book to include every affirmative defense ever recognized by a court.