Judge Matthew C. Braner, Case 37-2023-00029890-CU-OR-CTL 2023-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2023-00029890-CU-OR-CTL, Date: 2023-12-15 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 30, 2023

12/01/2023 09:00:00 AM C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Other Real Property Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2023-00029890-CU-OR-CTL LORRAINE S MORRISON TRUSTEES OF THE GLENN L DRIGGERS AND LORRAINE S MORRISON FAMILY TRUST DATED 08/08/2014 VS WEYERMAN [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendants Sahar Hayeri and Kenneth Weyerman's motion to strike is GRANTED.

A court may strike 'any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a).) 'The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 437, subd.

(a).) Punitive Damages An improper claim for punitive damages can be stricken. (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 163-64.) Punitive damages are not favored and are generally granted only 'with the greatest caution.' (Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment and Housing Comm'n (1987) 43 Ca1.3d 1379, 1392.) As such, a claim for punitive damages must be pled with specificity; conclusory allegations unsupported by facts showing malicious, fraudulent, or oppressive intentions will not suffice. (G.D.

Searle & Co. v. Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 32-33; Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1041-42.) Punitive damages are available only in non-contract actions 'where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 3294, subd. (a). Facts that, if true, would demonstrate mere negligence or only recklessness do not warrant an award of punitive damages. (Johns-Mansville Sales Corporate Private Carriage v. Workers Comp.

Appeals Bd. (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 923, 931.) Even gross negligence is not sufficient. (Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1210-11.) Here, the complaint lacks the requisite specific, non-conclusory factual allegations of reprehensible conduct that might support a claim for punitive damages. The allegations in the complaint related to purported destruction of Plaintiffs' plants and a portion of their fence, and pointing cameras in the direction of the dispute area, are not allegations of ultimate fact sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages. The legal authority Plaintiffs rely on also does not support allowing the claim to survive. The facts in Griffin v. Northridge (1944) 67 Cal.App.2d 69, 71-72 have little, if any, resemblance to the allegations at issue. Likewise with respect to the facts in Goshgarian v. George (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 1214, 1224-25.

Accordingly, Defendants' motion to strike is granted and the portions of the complaint stated in Defendants' notice of motion related to punitive damages are stricken. Plaintiffs will be given leave to Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3011020 16 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: LORRAINE S MORRISON TRUSTEES OF THE GLENN L 37-2023-00029890-CU-OR-CTL amend their complaint on this issue.

References to Defendant Hayeri's Occupation An 'irrelevant matter' is an 'immaterial allegation,' (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10, subd. (c)), which is '[a]n allegation that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense,' or '[a]n allegation that is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10, subd.

(b).) Conversely, a 'material allegation' is one that is 'essential to the claim or defense and which could not be stricken from the pleading without leaving it insufficient as to that claim or defense.' (Code Civ.

Proc., § 431.10, subd. (a).) Here, Defendants seek to strike references in the complaint to Defendant Hayeri being a licensed California attorney. They argue that this fact is not relevant to any of Plaintiffs' claims and is instead an effort to prejudice Defendants by creating, without legal support, a higher standard of care applicable to Defendant Hayeri and impute to her certain knowledge based solely on her status as an attorney. The court agrees, and the legal authority relied on by Plaintiff, which involved a professional malpractice case against an attorney, is plainly inapposite. (See Blegen v. Superior Court (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 959, 961-62.) Accordingly, Defendants' motion to strike is granted, without leave to amend on this issue. The portions of the complaint stated in Defendants' notice of motion related to Defendant Hayeri's status as an attorney are stricken.

Plaintiffs have 30 days from entry of this order to amend their complaint with respect to the punitive damages claim.

The minute order is the order of the court.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3011020 16