The Motion (ROA # 18) of Defendants Carol W. Close and Charles L. Close ("Defendants") to strike portions of the Complaint of Plaintiffs MARK R. SWENSON, VALERIE H. SWENSON and both individuals as Co-Trustees of the SWENSON FAMILY TRUST ("Plaintiffs"), is GRANTED. The Court strikes paragraph 10 from the demand for judgment (FAC at page 14, lines 9 - 10). Plaintiffs are permitted leave to file and serve a Second Amended Complaint within twenty (20) days of this hearing. In the alternative, Plaintiffs may wish to consider filing a future Motion seeking leave to amend after they have had an opportunity to conduct discovery and investigation of facts supporting a claim for punitive damages.
A claim for punitive damages cannot be pled generally. It is not sufficient to allege merely that defendant "acted with oppression, fraud or malice." Edmon & Karnow, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2020) at ¶ 6:158 (citing Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal. App. 4th 1033,
Hearing Date
November 05, 2020
Category
Civil - Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
The Motion (ROA # 18) of Defendants Carol W. Close and Charles L. Close ("Defendants") to strike portions of the Complaint of Plaintiffs MARK R. SWENSON, VALERIE H. SWENSON and both individuals as Co-Trustees of the SWENSON FAMILY TRUST ("Plaintiffs"), is GRANTED. The Court strikes paragraph 10 from the demand for judgment (FAC at page 14, lines 9 - 10). Plaintiffs are permitted leave to file and serve a Second Amended Complaint within twenty (20) days of this hearing. In the alternative, Plaintiffs may wish to consider filing a future Motion seeking leave to amend after they have had an opportunity to conduct discovery and investigation of facts supporting a claim for punitive damages.
A claim for punitive damages cannot be pled generally. It is not sufficient to allege merely that defendant "acted with oppression, fraud or malice." Edmon & Karnow, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2020) at ¶ 6:158 (citing Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal. App. 4th 1033,