Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 24SMCV04213, Date: 2025-01-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV04213    Hearing Date: January 15, 2025    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

This case arises from a dispute concerning trees and a fence along the boundary line between two real properties.  On August 27, 2024, Plaintiff Tricia Drum Lal (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Defendant Barbara Mednick (“Defendant”) alleging four causes of action for (1) trespass; (2) negligence; (3) conversion; and (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Defendant now moves to strike allegations and requests for punitive damages from the complaint.  Plaintiff opposes the motion and Defendant replies. 

ANALYSIS

1.     MOTION TO STRIKE

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a motion to strike the whole pleading or any part thereof.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1322, subd. (b).)  On a motion to strike, the court may: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a)-(b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782.) 

In ruling on a motion to strike punitive damages, “judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth.”  (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.)  To state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a plaintiff must allege the elements set forth in the punitive damages statute, Civil Code section 3294.  (College Hosp., Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 721.)  Per Civil Code section 3294, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.  (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).)   As set forth in the Civil Code,

(1) “Malice” means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.  (2) “Oppression” means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.  (3) “Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.

(Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1)-(3), emphasis added.) 

Further, a plaintiff must assert facts with specificity to support a conclusion that a defendant acted with oppression, fraud or malice.  To wit, there is a heightened pleading requirement regarding a claim for punitive damages.  (See Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1041-1042.)  “When nondeliberate injury is charged, allegations that the defendant’s conduct was wrongful, willful, wanton, reckless or unlawful do not support a claim for exemplary damages; such allegations do not charge malice.  When a defendant must produce evidence in defense of an exemplary damage claim, fairness demands that he receive adequate notice of the kind of conduct charged against him.” (G. D. Searle & Co. v. Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 29 [cleaned up].)  In Anschutz Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Snepp, the Court of Appeal noted that the plaintiffs’ assertions related to their claim for punitive damages were “insufficient to meet the specific pleading requirement.”  (Anschutz Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Snepp (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 598, 643 [plaintiffs alleged “the conduct of Defendants was intentional, and done willfully, maliciously, with ill will towards Plaintiffs, and with conscious disregard for Plaintiff's rights. Plaintiff's injuries were exacerbated by the malicious conduct of Defendants. Defendants' conduct justifies an award of exemplary and punitive damages”]; see also Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166 [“The mere allegation an intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages.  Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud, or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim”].) 

Here, Plaintiff alleges:

5. Plaintiff Tricia Drum Lal (“Plaintiff”) owns the home located at 9322 Cattaraugus Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90034 (“Subject Property”). Plaintiff at all times relevant resides in Subject Property.

6. Defendant Barbara Mednick (“Defendant”) owns a residential real property at 9323 Kramerwood Pl, Los Angeles, CA 90034 (the “Mednick Property”). Upon information and belief, Defendant at all times relevant resides in the Mednick Property.

7. On information and belief, Subject Property and the Mednick Property share a common boundary demarcated by two fences, one built by Plaintiff in 2003, and the other built by Defendant sometime in 2022.

8. Plaintiff has lived in the Subject Property for over twenty years. When Plaintiff first purchased the home in 2003, together with her parents (both have since passed away), Plaintiff planted multiple trees in the backyard. These trees became beautiful and full, towering over 25 feet tall. They provided beauty, shade, privacy many years of joyful memories with family and friends, and a permanent reminder of her parents and the bond they had shared.          

9. When Plaintiff first moved into Subject Property, she sought Defendant’s consent to replace the chain link fence with a new wooden fence. Defendant gave her written permission and agreed to share half of the cost. When the fence was completed, Defendant reneged on this agreement and denied making any such promises.

10. In 2006, 2011, and 2014, Mednick complained about the fence various times. Each time Plaintiff fixed the fence promptly and with her own funds and labor.

11. In 2021, Mednick built a fence directly adjacent to the existing wooden fence from 2014. Mednick began complaining, over several frantic phone calls, about a pole leaning on Mednick’s new fence and demanded that Plaintiff’s dog not be near the fence either.

12. In 2021, Mednick left a message threatening to “take things further” if Plaintiff did not comply with her demands.

13. On August 14, 2023, Medick left a threatening voice mail warning Plaintiff to trim back her trees, and offering to pay for half of the cost if Plaintiff footed the bill upfront. Knowing Defendant might again renege on her promises, Plaintiff declined, but stated that she “would be happy to discuss this further in the future.” DEFENDANT INVADES THE PROPERTY AND BUTCHERS PLAINTIFF’S TREES

14. On August 25, 2023, while Plaintiff and her husband were away tree-trimmers (strangers and trespassers) entered Plaintiff’s property, climbing the fence to Plaintiff’s yard and unlocking the gate to the backyard from within.

15. Once the whole group was inside the yard, they quickly and brutally cut down five of the 25-foot trees Plaintiff had planted with her parents some 20 years prior.

16. Rather than cutting the trees back, Defendant cut the trees down. The trees were cut in half and not a leave or branch was left. By the time Defendant was done, the trees looked like standing sticks.

17. Mednick hired the group of tree-trimmers and orchestrated their cutting down of the trees.

18. On information and belief, Defendant instructed the trimmers to enter the property despite the locked gate.

19. When Plaintiff’s husband arrived home, he found the previously locked gate wide open and five to six strangers walking in and out of his backyard and cutting his trees. When he asked the workers who they are and what they are doing, the workers told him that Defendant hired them.

20. The workers further informed Plaintiff’s husband that they had been given permission to enter and cut down the trees. He disagreed and explained that no such instructions were given by the homeowner of the Subject Property.

21. The trimmers packed up and left.

22. On July 18, 2024, Defendant instructed her gardener cut down more of Plaintiff’s trees. The gardener leaned from a ladder 3-4 feet over the fence in order to cut more trees down from within Plaintiff’s property lines. Defendant was standing behind her fence directing the gardener.

23. Defendant destroyed nearly the whole grove of Plaintiff’s trees. The once majestic 25 feet tall trees stand as bare as telephone poles.

24. Some trees were cut down to less than half of their original size; it will take twenty years for these to return to anything resembling their prior form.

25. Now that the trees have been cut down and denuded with all branches and leaves, over half of the yard is exposed, resulting in a reduction in the value of Subject Property.

26. The trees had significant sentimental value. Plaintiff also fears for her and her family’s safety. Plaintiff has filed a police report and a temporary restraining order. She is afraid that Defendant would have strangers jump over the fence and cause them harm. Plaintiff suffers from anxiety, stress and emotional distress as a result of Mednick’s malicious conduct.

[…]

34. Defendant(s) intentionally crossed over on to Subject Property and cut down at least five trees without Plaintiff’s knowledge or consent, and while committing trespass onto the land after circumventing a locked gate for the premises.

[…]

37. Plaintiff never gave Defendant(s) permission to enter Subject Property or cut the trees.

38. Defendant tricked the trimmers by pretending to be the owner of the Subject Property and causing them to unknowingly assist her in the completion of criminal acts. These are facially acts that are in bad faith, as well as “wrongful,” under the relevant California authorities.

39. Defendant Mednick’s July 18 second cutting of the remaining trees was bad faith trespass because it was willful, intentional, and in disregard of Plaintiff’s property and personal rights. Defendant was on notice that she did not have permission to cut down the trees.

[…]

42. Defendant acted with malice, fraud, and oppression to justify an award of punitive damages by repeatedly trespassing onto Plaintiff’s property and cutting down her trees without permission or consent, in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights, and tricked tree trimmers by impersonating Plaintiff and instructing them to carry out the cuttings at the Subject Property.

[…]

53. Defendant(s) acted with malice, fraud, and oppression to justify an award of punitive damages by repeatedly trespassing onto Plaintiff’s property and cutting down her trees without permission or consent, in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. On information and belief Defendant did this knowing that her actions would particularly affect Plaintiff.

[…]

58. Defendant(s) acted with malice, fraud, and oppression to justify an award of punitive damages because her conduct was intentionally done to injure Plaintiff.

59. This intention was evident when she cut down Plaintiff’s trees after Plaintiff sent her a letter of representation. When Plaintiff confronted her, she said “I can do what I want and when I want.”

60. Defendant’s actions were motivated by a desire to harass, annoy, and cause emotional distress to Plaintiff.

(Complaint ¶¶ 5-26, 34, 37-39, 42, 53, 58-60.)

            These allegations are sufficient to specifically allege fraudulent conduct by Defendant, in instructing tree trimmers to enter Plaintiff’s property to cut down the trees, as well as intentionally cutting down the trees in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s property rights sufficient to allege malice.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, the Court denies Defendant’s motion to strike punitive damages from the Complaint in its entirety. 

Further, the Court orders Defendant to file an Answer to the Complaint on or before February 5, 2025. 

Further, notwithstanding the deadline for Defendant to file an Answer to the Complaint, the Court will proceed with the Case Management Conference set on January 15, 2025. 

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith. 

DATED:  January 15, 2025                                                    ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court