Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 24STCV06445, Date: 2024-09-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV06445    Hearing Date: September 30, 2024    Dept: 34

The Motion to Strike is DENIED.

BACKGROUND:

On March 15, 2024, Plaintiffs Aaron Miller and Catherine Miller filed their Complaint against Defendants Thelaal, LLC, Connie Kim, Aaron Merriman, and LMDG Real Estate Value Fund II Holdings, LLC (“LMDG”) on allegations arising during Plaintiffs’ tenancy in Defendants’ rental property.

On May 23, 2024, Defendant Aaron Merriman filed his Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Complaint (“Motion to Strike”). Defendant Aaron Merriman concurrently filed his Proposed Order.

On May 31, 2024, Defendant LMDG filed its Joinder to the Motion to Strike.

On June 14, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to the Motion to Strike.

On June 20, 2024, Defendant Aaron Merriman filed his Reply in support of the Motion to Strike.

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, but this time limitation shall not apply to motions specified in subdivision (e).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (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 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.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 436.)

“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).)

“A notice of motion to strike a portion of a pleading must 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. Specifications in a notice must be numbered consecutively.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1322(a).)

II.       Discussion

Defendants Aaron Merriman and LMDG move the Court to strike from the Complaint Plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages and all references to the same. (Motion to Strike, p. 8:15–16.) Defendants argue: (1) that Plaintiffs have not pleaded malice, oppression, or fraud in the relevant causes of action; and (2) and that good cause therefore exists to strike the request for punitive damages. (Id. at pp. 2:7–9, 4:1–4, 5:11–13, 6:11–12, 7:1–3, 7:16–18.)

The Court disagrees with this argument.

Plaintiffs repeatedly include descriptive and explicit allegations of malice, oppression, and fraud in their pleading. (Complaint, ¶¶ 44–48, 64, 71, 84, 91, 101, 115, 148, 152.) It is not irrelevant, false, or improper to make such allegations in a pleading. It will ultimately be Plaintiffs’ burden to prove that they are entitled to the relief that they seek.

III.     Conclusion

The Motion to Strike is DENIED.