On March 23, 2017 a
Order
was filed
involving a dispute between
Bonnici, Timothy A,
and
Does 1 To 20, Inclusive,
Henry, Carroll,
Mcmackin, Charles,
for civil
in the District Court of San Francisco County.
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
Document Filed Date
June 25, 2020
Case Filing Date
March 23, 2017
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.