Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 22VECV00766, Date: 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22VECV00766    Hearing Date: September 8, 2022    Dept: W

yang v. ABUDALU, et al.

(1) DEMURRER to plaintiff’s complaint

(2) MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Date of Hearing:        September 8, 2022               Trial Date:       None set.  

Department:              W                                            Case No.:        22VECV00766

Moving Party:            Defendant Raad Shalabi

Responding Party:     Plaintiff Henry Shin Yang

Meet and Confer:      Vance Decl. ¶¶ 3-5.

BACKGROUND

On June 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a form Complaint against Defendants for (1) Specific Performance for Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of Contract; (3) For Failure To Disclose Against All Defendants; (4) Intentional Misrepresentation against defendants Dalu; (5) Negligent Misrepresentation of fact; (6) Negligence (Negligent per se); (7) Negligent Hiring, Training And Supervision; (8) Unfair Competition/Unfair Business Practice; (9) Breach of Duty to Honest an Truthful Against all defendants; (10) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; and (11) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. This case arises out of a residential lease agreement and an alleged option to purchase.

[Tentative] Ruling

Defendant Raad Shalabi’s demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend as to the second cause of action, and OVERRULED as to all other causes of action.

Defendant Raad Shalabi’s motion to strike is GRANTED in its entirety with leave to amend.

ANALYSIS

Demurrer

Defendant Raad Shalabi demurs to the second, third, fifth, sixth, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh causes of action. Defendant argues that these causes of action fail because Plaintiff admits in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint that he has never met Defendant. However, Paragraph 22 only states that he never met with Defendant regarding the transaction. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was the agent who represented Plaintiff and Defendants Dalu in the real estate transaction. (Complaint, ¶20.) Without further explanation from Defendant, it does not appear that Paragraph 22 defeats the claims.

Nonetheless, Plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of contract fails because no contract between Defendant and Plaintiff is identified, nor are the terms set forth. The contract attached to the Complaint is not between Defendant and Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the demurrer to the second cause of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. The demurrer is OVERRULED as to all other causes of action.

Motion to Strike

Defendant moves to strike attorney fees and punitive damages from the Complaint.

As the prayer for attorney fees is based on the breach of contract cause of action, the prayer fails as well.

Defendant also moves to strike the prayer for punitive damages, arguing that there are no facts alleged to support this claim. Plaintiff bases the claim on breach of fiduciary duty and fraud. However, the allegations do not rise to the level necessary to support a claim for punitive damages and are conclusory.

The motion to strike is GRANTED in its entirety with leave to amend.