Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCV41620, Date: 2023-03-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV41620    Hearing Date: March 9, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 9, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Strike

Moving Party: Defendant Reevolution

Responding Party: Plaintiff Victor Segura

T/R:    DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE IS DENIED.

            DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

            On September 26, 2022, Plaintiff Victor Segura filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendants Catie Dinsmoor, Chriss Turcott and Reevolution, asserting twelve causes of action arising from Plaintiff’s tenancy at a single-family residence owned by Defendants. Plaintiff alleges Defendants rented out the ADU (additional dwelling unit) on the property causing various disruptions to Plaintiff’s tenancy.

ANALYSIS

“Any party, within the time allowed to response to a pleading, may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part" of that pleading. (CCP § 435(b)(1).) “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 asserted 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." (CCP § 436.)

Punitive damages are available in noncontract cases where the defendant is guilty of “oppression, fraud, or malice.”  (Civil Code § 3294(a).)  Conclusory allegations are insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages.  (See, e.g., Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital (1989) 214 Cal. App. 3d 590, 620.)  However, “the stricken language must be read not in isolation, but in the context of the facts alleged in the rest of petitioner's complaint.”  (Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal. App. 3d 1, 6.)

Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages on the ground that Plaintiff has failed to allege Defendant acted with malice, oppression, or fraud. Plaintiff states causes of action for trespass, nuisance, and IIED against moving Defendant. Punitive damages are available for these causes of action but entitlement to punitive damages must be pleaded with specificity. Plaintiff alleges Defendant used the ADU to house recent parolees. Plaintiff alleges this resulted in police being called to the residence; parole officers visiting Plaintiff and demanding access to the ADU; staff and tenant parking on the lawn blocking Plaintiff’s vehicle; increased traffic in the narrow walkway; and a tenant walking around the backyard with a knife.

Plaintiff alleges Defendant knowingly caused significant interference with Plaintiff’s daily life. This is sufficient to support punitive damages against Reevolution and to proceed to discovery.

The motion to strike is DENIED.