Luo v. Li, et al.
MOTIION TO STRIKE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
(CCP §§ 430.10, 436)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant Chengchen Li aka Michelle Li’s Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED in its entirety and the Motion to Strike is GRANTED, both with 20 days’ leave to amend.
ANALYSIS:
I. Background
This action arose from a dispute over a residential lease agreement between tenant Plaintiff Xingfei Luo (“Plaintiff”) and landlord Defendant Chengchen Li aka Michelle Li (“Defendant”). On June 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) for (1) fraud, (2) unjust enrichment, (3) breach of implied covenant of good faith, and (4) unlawful and unfair business practices. On October 1, 2019, the court sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the entire FAC granted Defendant’s motion to strike punitive damages, both with 20 days leave to amend.
On October 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (the “SAC”) for (1) fraud, (2) unjust enrichment, (3) b
Type
Other Contract Dispute (not breach/insurance/fraud/negligence) (Limited Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Luo v. Li, et al.
MOTIION TO STRIKE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
(CCP §§ 430.10, 436)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant Chengchen Li aka Michelle Li’s Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED in its entirety and the Motion to Strike is GRANTED, both with 20 days’ leave to amend.
ANALYSIS:
I. Background
This action arose from a dispute over a residential lease agreement between tenant Plaintiff Xingfei Luo (“Plaintiff”) and landlord Defendant Chengchen Li aka Michelle Li (“Defendant”). On June 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) for (1) fraud, (2) unjust enrichment, (3) breach of implied covenant of good faith, and (4) unlawful and unfair business practices. On October 1, 2019, the court sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the entire FAC granted Defendant’s motion to strike punitive damages, both with 20 days leave to amend.
On October 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (the “SAC”) for (1) fraud, (2) unjust enrichment, (3) b