Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV01140, Date: 2023-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 23CHCV01140    Hearing Date: October 11, 2023    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 10/11/23

Case #23CHCV01140

MOTION TO STRIKE

Motion filed on 6/28/23.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Shanna X. Chen, individually and as Trustee of the Chen Family Trust

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Houshang Rezvan Behbahani and Mina Sadighi

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order striking the following portions of Plaintiffs’ complaint:

(1) Page 1 Line 25 to Page 2 Line 16: The entire INTRODUCTION as being irrelevant and improper;

(2) Page 3 Line 14 the word “unlawfully” as being improper and irrelevant as a legal conclusion;

(3) Page 3 Lines 18-24: The entire paragraph as being improperly plead, ambiguous and lacking in specificity as to the facts plead;

(4) Page 4 Line 27 to Page 5 Line 3 The entire paragraph as being improperly plead, ambiguous and lacking in specificity as to the facts plead necessary to warrant the imposition of punitive damages;

(5) Page 7 Lines 4-5 of the Prayer: “4. For a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendants to cease any future trespass on to the Property” – a request for injunctive relief in this matter is not supported by the allegations in the Complaint; and

(6) Page 7 Line 8 of the Prayer: “6. For attorney fees and costs of suit.”

RULING: The motion is granted, in part, and denied, in part.

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of Plaintiffs Houshang Rezvan Behbahani and Mina Sadighi’s (Plaintiffs) claim that Defendant Shanna X. Chen, individually and as Trustee of the Chen Family Trust (Defendant) trespassed onto Plaintiffs’ property and cut, or had cut, several mature trees without Plaintiffs’ permission.  On 4/18/23, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendant for: (1) Trespass, (2) Negligence and (3) Intentional Cutting, Damaging and Trespass to Timber.  Plaintiffs’ complaint includes claims for statutory treble damages; alternatively, statutory double damages; or alternatively, punitive damages; injunctive relief and attorney fees.  (See Complaint, p.6:21-p.7:8). 

After meet and confer efforts failed to resolve issues Defendant had with the complaint, on 6/28/23, Defendant filed and served the instant motion seeking an order striking the following portions of Plaintiffs’ complaint:  

(1) Page 1 Line 25 to Page 2 Line 16: The entire INTRODUCTION as being irrelevant and improper;

(2) Page 3 Line 14 the word “unlawfully” as being improper and irrelevant as a legal conclusion;

(3) Page 3 Lines 18-24: The entire paragraph as being improperly plead, ambiguous and lacking in specificity as to the facts plead;

(4) Page 4 Line 27 to Page 5 Line 3 The entire paragraph as being improperly plead, ambiguous and lacking in specificity as to the facts plead necessary to warrant the imposition of punitive damages;

(5) Page 7 Lines 4-5 of the Prayer: “4. For a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendants to cease any future trespass on to the Property” – a request for injunctive relief in this matter is not supported by the allegations in the Complaint; and

(6) Page 7 Line 8 of the Prayer: “6. For attorney fees and costs of suit.”

Plaintiffs have opposed the motion and Defendant has filed a reply to the opposition. 

ANALYSIS

CCP 436 provides:

“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.”

Punitive damages may only be awarded in cases involving fraud, oppression or malice.  Civil Code 3294.  A claim for punitive damages must be supported by specific factual allegations.  Hilliard (1983) 148 CA3d 374, 391-392.

Defendant contends that Plaintiffs have failed to plead sufficient facts to support the imposition of punitive damages against Defendant in this case.  As such, Defendant seeks to strike the introductory paragraphs of the complaint (p.1:25-p.2:16), the word “unlawfully” including in paragraph 11 of the “Factual Allegations” in the complaint, (p.3:14), allegations that Defendant acted outrageously by intentionally and knowingly entering Plaintiffs’ property without permission and cutting down trees to improve the access to sun for Defendant’s solar panels (p.3:18-24), and allegations regarding punitive damages in the trespass cause of action (p.4:27-p.5:3).  Defendant does not include the prayer for punitive damages contained paragraph 3 of the prayer at p.7:1-3 in the items to be stricken.

The Court finds that the allegations in the “Introduction” of the complaint are improper argument.  Similarly, the Court finds that the word unlawfully is an improper legal conclusion.  However, the Court finds that the remaining allegations sought to be stricken in relation to Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages  are sufficiently supported by the totality of the facts alleged in the complaint. 

In order to obtain injunctive relief, a plaintiff must establish: (1) a tort or other wrongful act constituting a cause of action and (2) irreparable injury.  Brownfield (1989) 208 CA3d 405, 410.  Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to constitute the tort/wrongful act of trespass and cutting of trees without permission.  Plaintiffs have also alleged sufficient facts to establish irreparable injury from the conduct of cutting mature trees which took decades to grow that cannot be compensated by an ordinary award – i.e., to prevent Defendant from entering Plaintiffs’ property in the future without permission for similar purposes.  As such, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ prayer for injunctive relief is sufficiently supported.

Generally, attorney’s fees may only be awarded when authorized by a contract, statute or law.  CCP 1033.5(a)(10).  Plaintiffs fail to allege any basis for their claim for attorney’s fees in the complaint.  The opposition to the motion cites to Government Code 53067(a)(4).  (See Opposition, p.8:13-26).  However, nothing in this Government Code section provides authority for an award of attorneys’ fees under the circumstances.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s requests to strike p.1:25-p.2:16, the word “unlawfully” at p.3:14 and the prayer for “attorney fees” at p.7:8 (the prayer for costs of suit is not stricken) are granted without leave to amend.

Defendant’s requests to strike the remaining allegations, p.3:18-24 and p.4:27-p.5:3, relating to punitive damages and the prayer for injunctive relief, p.7:4-5, are denied.

Answer is due within 20 days.