Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 24NNCV01990, Date: 2024-09-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV01990    Hearing Date: September 10, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On May 31, 2024, plaintiff Svetlana Henderson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants John B. Fortner (“Fortner”) and Jon D. Henderson (“Henderson”) for elder financial abuse, fraud and deceit by concealment, quiet title, cancellation of instrument, and adverse possession. Fortner is Plaintiff’s brother and Henderson is Plaintiff’s ex-husband. (Compl., ¶¶ 2 ,4.)

Plaintiff alleges she owns the residential duplex located at 1417 and 1419 Bresee Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91104 (“Subject Property”) after she and her mother, Elizabeth Fortner (“Elizabeth”), purchased it on March 6, 2007, as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. (Compl., ¶ 8.) Plaintiff alleges that on March 6, 2015, while Elizabeth was still alive, Fortner fraudulently transferred Elizabeth’s interest in the Subject Property to himself without Plaintiff or Elizabeth’s knowledge or approval. (Compl., ¶ 10.) A copy of a quitclaim deed is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A. Elizabeth passed away on June 9, 2022. (Comp., ¶ 9.)

On July 31, 2024, Fortner filed this motion to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages and paragraphs 25, 26, and 32. Paragraphs 25 and 26 are part of the Complaint’s first cause of action for financial elder abuse and Paragraph 32 is part of the Complaint’s second cause of action for fraud and deceit by concealment.

II.          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 court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc, § 436, subd. (a); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782 [“Matter in a pleading which is not essential to the claim is surplusage; probative facts are surplusage and may be stricken out or disregarded”].) An immaterial or irrelevant allegation is one that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense; is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense; or a demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint.  (Code Civ Proc, § 431.10, subd. (b).)  The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)

III.        DISCUSSION

Punitive damages may be imposed where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) A motion to strike punitive damages is properly granted where a plaintiff does not state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, including allegations that defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud or malice. (Turman v. Turning Point of Cent. California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.) The allegations supporting a request for punitive damages must be alleged with specificity; conclusory allegations without sufficient facts are not enough. (Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1041-1042.)

Fortner moves to strike Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages on the grounds that no specific facts have alleged to justify such a request. Plaintiff opposes Fortner’s motion and argues that her allegations are sufficient to allege fraud and deceit because she alleges that Fortner transferred title to the Subject Property from his mother to himself without the knowledge, consent, or approval of Plaintiff or Elizabeth. (Compl., ¶¶ 9-10.) However, Plaintiff lacks standing to bring an elder abuse claim that belongs to her mother and Plaintiff does not allege that she is bringing an action as Elizabeth’s successor-in-interest.

As for Plaintiff’s second cause of action for “fraud and deceit by concealment”, Plaintiff alleges that Fortner acted fraudulently by concealing the fact that he had recorded the quitclaim deed. There are four circumstances in which nondisclosure or concealment may constitute actionable fraud: “(1) when the defendant is in a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff; (2) when the defendant had exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to the plaintiff; (3) when the defendant actively conceals a material fact from the plaintiff; and (4) when the defendant makes partial representations but also suppresses some material facts. [Citation.]”’ (LiMandri v. Judkins (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 326, 336.) Here, Plaintiff does not allege that she is in a fiduciary relationship with Fortner. And while she alleges that Fortner had exclusive knowledge of the quitclaim deed, this is belied by the fact that Elizabeth’s notarized signature is on the quitclaim deed; absent any allegation that the signature is forged, the requirement of exclusive knowledge does not appear to have been met. Last, Plaintiff does not allege any acts constituting “active concealment”, nor does she identify any “partial representations” which Fortner made while suppressing some other material facts.

In light of the foregoing, the motion to strike is GRANTED in its entirety. As for whether Plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint, the Court notes that Fortner’s demurrer is scheduled for hearing on November 27, 2024. Therefore, in the interest of judicial economy, the Court will defer its decision until after it has ruled on Fortner’s demurrer.

Moving party to give notice.

Dated this 10th day of September 2024

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.