Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 23STCV15752, Date: 2023-10-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV15752    Hearing Date: October 12, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:        Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint

Moving Party: Defendant Gill Roy Copeland, Jr.

Resp. Party:    Plaintiff David Phillips

The Motion is GRANTED in part.  The punitive damages are stricken from the contract cause of part action. The request for punitive damages are not stricken from the remaining causes of action.

BACKGROUND:

On July 6, 2023, Plaintiff David Phillips filed his Complaint against Defendants Gill Roy Copeland, Jr. (erroneously sued as Gil Roy Copeland Jr.) and Dionne Survert on causes of action arising from Plaintiff’s tenancy.

On September 12, 2023, Defendant Gill Roy Copeland, Jr. (“Defendant”) filed his Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Motion”).

On September 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Opposition to the Motion.

On October 5, 2023, Defendant filed his Reply regarding the Motion.

ANALYSIS:

I.          Legal Standard

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1)). The notice of motion to strike a portion of a pleading shall quote in full the portions sought to be stricken except where the motion is to strike an entire paragraph, cause of action, count or defense. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1322.)

The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or form any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437, subd. (a).) The court then may strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading and 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) When the defect which justifies striking a complaint is capable of cure, the court should allow leave to amend. (Perlman v. Mun. Ct. (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 568, 575.)

II.       Discussion

Defendant moves the Court to strike various portions of the Complaint that involve punitive damages. (Motion, pp. 2–4, 7:21–22, 9:12–13, 11:21–22.)

Plaintiff has agreed in his opposition to strike the claims for punitive damages from his Breach of Contract claim. 

        The Court agrees that punitive damages are unavailable for Breach of Contract claims.

However, Plaintiff is entitled to allege that Defendant acted with oppression, fraud, and/or malice on the non-contract causes of action. It will ultimately be Plaintiff’s burden to prove that he is entitled to the relief he seeks.

III.     Conclusion

The Motion is GRANTED in part.  The punitive damages are stricken from the contract cause of part action. The request for punitive damages are not stricken from the remaining other causes of action.