arrow left
arrow right
  • TIMOTHY A BONNICI VS. CHARLES MCMACKIN ET AL DEFAMATION document preview
  • TIMOTHY A BONNICI VS. CHARLES MCMACKIN ET AL DEFAMATION document preview
  • TIMOTHY A BONNICI VS. CHARLES MCMACKIN ET AL DEFAMATION document preview
  • TIMOTHY A BONNICI VS. CHARLES MCMACKIN ET AL DEFAMATION document preview
  • TIMOTHY A BONNICI VS. CHARLES MCMACKIN ET AL DEFAMATION document preview
  • TIMOTHY A BONNICI VS. CHARLES MCMACKIN ET AL DEFAMATION document preview
						
                                

Preview

Co em IW DH PF WY mt RBXYNFERRERBRESSCRRVARDEBESS Tara Macomber, SBN 264725 OPEN DOOR LEGAL San Francisco Gaunty Surerior Court 60 Ocean Avenue San Francisco, CA 94112 JUN 2 5 2020 415-323-0946 CLERK OF pe GOURT Aoy fx it " me SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION wucrevul Timothy Bonnici, an individual, Case No.: CGC-17-557688 RDER DENYING Plaintiff DEFENDANTS/MOTION TO STRIKE AND/DEMURRER TO vs. TIMOTHY BONNICI’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT. Charles McMackin, an individual, Carroll Henry, an individual, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. Date: Thursday June 24, 2020 Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept: 302 Judge: Ethan P. Shulmanoem QD HAH FWY Be N NON a a a a ea BNRRFERPEBBRBSCSERTRBDBRESBERES Defendant Carroll Henry’s motion to strike and demurrer of Plaintiff Timothy Bonnici came before hearing on Thursday June 24, 2020 at 9:30 in department 302 of this court, located at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, California. WHEREAS, the matter proceeded uncontested and the Court adopted its tentative ruling on DEFENDANTS CHARLES MCMACKIN AND CAROLL HENRY’S DEMURRER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, as follows: Defendants McMackin and Henry's demurrers to plaintiff's third amended complaint are overruled. The court liberally reads the amended complaint as a whole, (See Code Civ. Proc. § 452.) "Defamation is the intentional publication of a statement of fact that is false, unprivileged, and has a natural tendency to injure or that causes special damage." (Grenier v. Taylor (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 471, 486.) Paragraphs 16-17 of the amended complaint plead timely defamation| causes of action. Plaintiff is correct that when pleading a defamation claim, less particularity is required where the defendant presumptively posses¢ full information concerning the facts of the controversy. (See Bradley v. Hartford Acc. & Indemnity Co. (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 818, 825 (disapproved on other grounds in Silberg v. Anderson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 205.) Here, paragraphs 9-15 and 18 allege that defendants have a history of falsely accusing plaintiff of theft. Paragraph 16 alleges that defendant published a statement falsely accusing plaintiff of a crime (theft) to Jude Sykes in July of 2016. Plaintiff pleads defamation per se. (See Civ. Code 46(1).) Paragraph 17 similarly alleges that defendant falsely told a San Mateo homeowner in July of 2016 that defendant was a thief. These instances of defamation are not time-barred and discovery will reveal the specifics of the alleged communications, The demurrer to the intentional interference with prospective economic advantage cause of action is overruled. To plead the claim, plaintiff must allege: "(1) an economic relationship between plaintiff and a third party, with theOo eo yt DHA FR WN FS N eo Boe Be Be Se eB BRRERBRPERBBRSRVCSERTADEBRAS probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) defendant's knowledge of the relationship; (3) an intentional act by the defendant, designed to disrupt the relationship; (4) actual disruption of the relationship; and (5) economic harm to the plaintiff proximately caused by the defendant's wrongful act, including an intentional act by the defendant that is designed to disrupt the relationship between the plaintiff and a third party." (Edwards v. Arthur Anderson LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937, 944.) While not a model of pleading, the amended complaint sufficiently alleges facts showing that defendant intentionally interfered with the prospective economic relationship between plaintiff, on the one hand, and Jude Seyks and the San Mateo homeowner, on the other hand. WHEREAS, the matter proceeded uncontested and the Court adopted its tentative ruling on DEFENDANTS CHARLES MCMACKIN AND CAROLL HENRY’S MOTION TO STRIKE THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, as follows: Defendants McMackin and Henry's motion to strike is denied. The motion does not raise any issues not addressed by the demurrer ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED am Dated June Ls, 2020 LY. ay ye Honorable Ethg m Schulman Judge of Supetor Court