Motion,Ex Parte: Nicole E Jordan vs Rogers Sheffield & Campbell LLP et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                I   KENNY C. BROOKS (SBN 254842)
                        MICHAEL MCCARTHY (SBN 89588)
                   2    NEMECEK & COLE
                        A Professional Corporation
                   J    16255 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300
                        Encino, Califomi a 9 1 436-2300
                   4    Tel: (818) 788-9500 / Fax: (818) 501-0328

                   5    Attomeys for Defendants
                        ROGERS SHEFFIELD & CAMPBELL, LLP
                   6

                   7

                   8
                                              SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                   9
                                                     F'ORTHE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
     5             10
     ss
                   l1
9)z)G                   NICOLE EMILY JORDAN, individually and                as       Case No.: 23CY02702
 -.t9d; t2              Successor Trustee and Beneficiary ofTHE                       Assigned to Hon. Colleen Sterne
-oBgc
\J9o>                   BOROMIR AND VIRGINIA JORDAN
                   13   FAMILY TRUST, and as Beneficiary of and                        DEFENDANT ROGERS SHEFFIELD &
€6:g
  .v5L                  Successor-In-Interest to the ESTATE OF                         CAMPBELL LLP,S MOTION TO STRJKE
}4?:B
Trl z i o
                   14   VIRGINIA JORDAN (DECEASED)                                     PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S
ts    3'E
!-.,i u o          15                            Plaintiff,
                                                                                       COMPLAINT
               ^
fi9
    *za        13   about 5 5 minutes, counsel did not reach agreement that could evade the instant motion. (1rid. )
€
vEl            14                                                              IIL
U ;AE
El             15                                                         ARGUMENT
       PgE
rr.l
z              16   A.         MOTIONS TO STRIKE

               17              A    motion     to strike may be          employed    to strike any "irrelevant, false or           improper
        zLrl        matter inserted in any pleading" or to strike any pleading or part thereof "not drawn or filed in
               18

               19   conformity with the lows of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court." (code civ. Proc. $ 436

               20   (emphasis added).) Unlike demurrers, motions to strike can be used to attack the entire pleading, or

               21   any part thereof -- even single words or phrases. (Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal. 5lh 3'16, 393-

               22   394; Warren v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. (1971) 19 Cal' App. 3d 24, 40.). The grounds

               23   for a motion to strike must appear on the face ofthe pleading under attack, or from matter which the

               24   court may judicially notice. (Code Civ. Proc. $437.) Additionally, a motion to strike may lie where

               25   the facts alleged do not rise to the level of "malice, fraud or oppression" required to support a punitive

               26   damages award. (Turman v. Turning Point of Central Calif., Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.                      App.4th 53,63.)

               27

               28   5 There is no distinction between Nicole bringing this claim individually and as a beneficiary (which is a claim brought
                    in an individual capacity.) Accordingly, this demurrer will analyze these claims as one.
                                                                                7
                             DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
                    2253294 I 2225 026
              I   B.        THEREISNOENTITLEMEN T TO ATTORNEY'S FEES
             2              Attomey's lees are only recoverable if authorized by contract or statute. (Code Civ. Proc.

             J    i1021; Tract 19051 Homeowners Assn. v. Kemp (2015) 60 Cal. 4th 1135.) In the breach of contract
             4    claim (4th), Nicole claims an entitlement to attomey's fees. However, there is no allegation that the

             5    contract contains a prevailing party attorney's fees provision or that aly cause of action alleged

             6    specifically authorizes the recovery ofattomey's fees by statute. Rather, Nicole claims an entitlement

              7   to attomey's fees under Code of Civil Procedure $1021.5, which provides the Court with discretion

              8   to award attorney's fees to a prevailing party "in an action which has resulted in the enforcement of

      q       9   an important right affecting the public interest[.]" This requires that the litigation have an impact on

             10   people other than those involved in the matter    -       and the benefit must inure primarily to the public.

       o::
       r6    11   (Choi v. Orange County Great Park Corp. (2009) 175 Cal. App. 4th 524.) There is no potential for
j) z2 a
Jqo;
   l-        12   a public benefit in this litigation. This is an action by Nicole to benefit herself exclusively and
 -\    -_-
 \,
    .*26     l3       1021.5 provides no grounds to recover attomey's fees in a self-interested action.
qH:?              $


n