This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/28/2020 at 22:37:06 (UTC).

GWENDOLYN CRANERT VS TERRENCE CRANERT, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 06/28/2019 GWENDOLYN CRANERT filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against TERRENCE CRANERT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WENDY CHANG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******6186

  • Filing Date:

    06/28/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

WENDY CHANG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

CRANERT GWENDOLYN

Defendants

CRANERT REBECCA

CRANERT TERRENCE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

DUMAS JAMES

Defendant Attorney

CRANERT TERRY

 

Court Documents

Objection (name extension) - Objection Objection to Judicial Notice in Support of Demurrer and Motion to Strike

2/10/2020: Objection (name extension) - Objection Objection to Judicial Notice in Support of Demurrer and Motion to Strike

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Demurrer of Defendants Terrence Cranert and Rebecca Cranert

2/10/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Demurrer of Defendants Terrence Cranert and Rebecca Cranert

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Motion to Strike of Defendants Terrence Cranert and Rebecca Cranert

2/10/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Motion to Strike of Defendants Terrence Cranert and Rebecca Cranert

Reply (name extension) - Reply DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

2/18/2020: Reply (name extension) - Reply DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10))

2/24/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10))

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Ruling on Submitted Matter) of 02/25/2020

2/25/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Ruling on Submitted Matter) of 02/25/2020

Minute Order - Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter)

2/25/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter)

Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

1/16/2020: Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

Motion to Strike (not initial pleading) - Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

1/16/2020: Motion to Strike (not initial pleading) - Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

1/16/2020: Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF TERRENCE L. CRANERT RE: MEET AND CONFER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE.

1/16/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF TERRENCE L. CRANERT RE: MEET AND CONFER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE.

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration DECLARATION OF TERRENCE L. CRANERT RE: MEET AND CONFER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE

1/16/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration DECLARATION OF TERRENCE L. CRANERT RE: MEET AND CONFER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE

Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

1/16/2020: Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

Complaint - Complaint

6/28/2019: Complaint - Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

6/28/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons - Summons on Complaint

6/28/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

6/28/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

6/28/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

6 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/01/2022
  • Hearing07/01/2022 at 10:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2020
  • Hearing12/28/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Ruling on Submitted Matter) of 02/25/2020; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10))

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2020
  • DocketHearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) scheduled for 02/24/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 02/24/2020; Result Type to Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/18/2020
  • DocketReply DEFENDANTS? REPLY TO PLAINTIFF?S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE PLAINTIFF?S COMPLAINT; Filed by: Terrence Cranert (Defendant); Rebecca Cranert (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2020
  • DocketOpposition to Demurrer of Defendants Terrence Cranert and Rebecca Cranert; Filed by: Gwendolyn Cranert (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2020
  • DocketOpposition to Motion to Strike of Defendants Terrence Cranert and Rebecca Cranert; Filed by: Gwendolyn Cranert (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2020
  • DocketObjection Objection to Judicial Notice in Support of Demurrer and Motion to Strike; Filed by: Gwendolyn Cranert (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
5 More Docket Entries
  • 01/16/2020
  • DocketDeclaration OF TERRENCE L. CRANERT RE: MEET AND CONFER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS? DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE. Filed by: Terrence Cranert (Defendant); Rebecca Cranert (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/16/2020
  • DocketRequest for Judicial Notice; Filed by: Terrence Cranert (Defendant); Rebecca Cranert (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 12/28/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 07/01/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Gwendolyn Cranert (Plaintiff); As to: Terrence Cranert (Defendant); Rebecca Cranert (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Gwendolyn Cranert (Plaintiff); As to: Terrence Cranert (Defendant); Rebecca Cranert (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Gwendolyn Cranert (Plaintiff); As to: Terrence Cranert (Defendant); Rebecca Cranert (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC06186    Hearing Date: February 24, 2020    Dept: 26

Cranert v. Cranert, et al.

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT

(CCP §§ 430.10, 436)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Terrence Cranert and Rebecca Cranert’s Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED.

Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of the Complaint is GRANTED WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND WITH RESPECT TO THE PORTIONS IN SUPPORT OF AND REQUESTING PUNITIVE DAMAGES. The Motion to Strike is DENIED AS TO ALL OTHER PORTIONS OF THE COMPLAINT.

ANALYSIS:

On June 28, 2019, Plaintiff Gwendolyn Cranert (“Plaintiff”) filed this action for replevin of personal property and for conversion against Defendants Terrence Cranert and Rebecca Cranert (collectively, “Defendants”), her adoptive parents.

On January 16, 2020, Defendants filed the instant Demurrer to, and Motion to Strike Portions of, the Complaint. Plaintiff filed oppositions to both motions on February 10, 2020. Defendants filed replies on February 18, 2020.

The Court finds the Demurrer and Motion to Strike are accompanied by a proper meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure sections 430.41 and 435.5. (Declaration of Terrence L. Cranert, p. 2.)

Defendants request that the Court take judicial notice of the following:

  1. The Request for a Temporary Restraining Order filed with this Court on January 30, 2019 in that matter entitled David Harriman v. Terrence Cranert, Case No. 9CHRO00143, attached to the Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit A;

  2. The Response of Terrence Cranert in the TRO Action filed with the Court on March 21, 2019, attached to the Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit B;

  3. The Request for Dismissal of the TRO Action filed by David Harriman in the Court on May 24, 2019, attached to the Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit C;

  4. The action filed by Gwendolyn Cranert with the Small Claims Division of this Court on May 27, 2019 entitled Gwendolyn Cranert v. Terrence Cranert, Case No. 19CHSC00719, attached to the Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit D;

  5. The Cross-Complaint filed in the Small Claims Action by Terrence Cranert on June 26, 2019, attached to the Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit E;

  6. The Dismissal of Gwendolyn Cranert's Small Claims Action filed with this Court on July 5, 2019, attached to the Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit F;

  7. The Dismissal of Terrence Cranert's Cross-Complaint in the Small Claims Action on July 5, 2019, attached to the Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit G; and

  8. The first page of the California Courts Judicial Branch of California re Adoption, as found on this Court's Website, attached to the Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit H.

In the reply, Defendants contend that the documents are relevant and material to the Court’s understanding of the issues at bench, because they demonstrate the “true motive” behind the current action and past actions brought by Plaintiff and her “landlord/boyfriend.” However, the only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) As such, the Court denies the request as to Exhibits A-G as irrelevant to the issues in the Demurrer and Motion to Strike. The Court further denies the request as to Exhibit H as not falling within matters which may be judicially noticed as defined by Evidence Code § 452.

Demurrer to Complaint

A demurrer tests the sufficiency of the pleading at issue as a matter of law. (City of Chula Vista v. County of San Diego (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1713, 1719.) A demurrer may be sustained where the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, the pleading is uncertain, or the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading. (CCP § 430.10(a), (e), (f).) The ultimate facts alleged in the complaint must be deemed true, as well as all facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged. (Marshall v. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1397, 1403; see also Shields v. County of San Diego (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 103, 133 (stating, “[o]n demurrer, pleadings are read liberally and allegations contained therein are assumed to be true.”)) However, the Court does not assume the truth of allegations expressing conclusions of law or allegations contradicted by the exhibits to the complaint or by matters of which judicial notice may be taken. (Vance v. Villa Park Mobilehome Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 698, 709.)

Defendants demurrer to the Complaint for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute the causes of action against Defendants and for uncertainty. The Complaint sets forth two causes of action: 1) replevin of personal property pursuant to CCP § 512.010; and 2) conversion.

Replevin

Replevin, modernly codified as claim and delivery, is a provisional remedy available in an action to recover personal property, and California has a detailed claim and delivery law. (CCP § 511.010 et seq.) A party with a claim that he is entitled to possession of property may apply for a writ of possession. (CCP § 512.010.) A writ of possession directs the levying officer to levy on specified property. (CCP § 512.080, subds. (b) & (d).) The court may also order the defendant to transfer possession of the property to the plaintiff. (CCP § 512.070.)

The claim and delivery law provides a complete prejudgment remedy to recover possession of personal property. (Simms v. NPCK Enterprises, Inc. (2003) 109 Cal. App. 4th 233, 242.) It enables a plaintiff that asserts a right to the possession of the property to obtain temporary possession of the property pending a final determination of the action. (American Machine & Foundry Co. v. Pitchess (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 490, 493; McFaddin v. H.S. Crocker Co. (1963) 219 Cal.App.2d 585, 590.) This remedy cannot be employed independently; it is available only as an auxiliary remedy in an action for the recovery of personal property. (McFaddin, supra, 219 Cal.App.2d at 590.)

CCP § 512.010 lists the requirements for an application of writ of possession to seek the provisional remedy of claim and delivery of personal property. Under CCP § 512.010(a), upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter, the plaintiff may apply for a writ of possession by filing a written application, pursuant to CCP § 512.010, with the court in which the action is brought.

As the first cause of action, Plaintiff requests an order for replevin of her personal property pursuant to CCP § 512.010. Plaintiff argues that she is entitled to a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunction, and/or writ of possession (claim and delivery) requiring Defendants to turn over the subject property. (Complaint, ¶¶ 5-9.)

Replevin would be more properly plead as a form of relief rather than a cause of action. Similarly, regarding the temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctions that Plaintiff seeks, CCP § 513.010 states: “At or after the time he files his application for writ of possession, the plaintiff may apply for a temporary restraining order by setting forth in the application a statement of grounds justifying the issuance of such order.” (CCP § 513.010.) As of the date of this hearing, Plaintiff has not yet filed an application for writ of possession of her personal property with this Court.

However, mistaken labels and confusion of legal theory are not fatal; if the complaint states a cause of action in any theory, the demurrer should be overruled. (Nguyen v. Scott (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 725, 730.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are in possession of personal property belonging to her, consisting of clothes, miscellaneous personal effects, and various documents. And as Plaintiff’s second cause of action is for conversion of her personal property, Plaintiff’s first cause of action is not an improper attempt to seek the repossession of her personal property. Accordingly, the mistaken labels and confusion of legal theory do not offer grounds for a demurrer.

Conversion

Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another. The elements of a conversion are: (1) the plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of the property at the time of the conversion; (2) the defendant’s conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages. It is not necessary that there be a manual taking of the property; it is only necessary to show an assumption of control or ownership over the property, or that the alleged converter has applied the property to his own use. (Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Zerin (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 445, 451-452.)

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to and refused to turn over her personal property, including her clothes and documents, in spite of repeated demands. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants willfully converted it to their own use and enjoyment, and that she has suffered and will continue to suffer compensatory damages as a result.

In opposition, Defendants contend that a conversion must amount to a "substantial interference" with a plaintiff's rights, and that Plaintiff failed to allege facts that Defendants substantially interfered with her rights. (See Jordan v. Talbot (1961) 55 Cal.2d 597, 610.) Defendants argue that Plaintiff is no longer a minor, and has failed to allege facts showing why she cannot obtain her own copies of documents that she alleges were converted, that may be obtained through public records or new filings (e.g., passport, adoption and naturalization papers, and documents pertaining to her health and dental insurance).

The Court finds Defendants’ argument irrelevant, as Plaintiff has properly alleged that Defendants maintained possession of her clothes, while Defendants only address the documents at issue. Furthermore, Defendants fail to distinguish that, while Plaintiff may have the opportunity to obtain her own copies of documents through public records or by her own application, by bringing suit, Plaintiff is seeking possession of actual, physical documents as personal property that she alleges she has ownership to and are now being held by Defendants. Accordingly, this is sufficient to allege conversion.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED.

Motion to Strike

The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (CCP § 436(a).) The court may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Id. at (b).) The grounds for a motion to strike are that the pleading has irrelevant, false or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws. (Id. at § 436.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Id. at § 437.) “When the defect which justifies striking a complaint is capable of cure, the court should allow leave to amend.” (Vaccaro v. Kaiman (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 761, 768.)

Defendants move to strike specific portions of the Complaint for the following reasons: 1) portions of Plaintiff’s first cause of action for replevin should be stricken for uncertainty and for failure to state sufficient facts; 2) portions of Plaintiff’s second cause of action for conversion should be stricken for the same reasons, and for failing to allege facts that Defendants substantially interfered with her rights; 3) Plaintiff has not alleged facts that would justify claims for temporary and/or preliminary injunctive relief; 4) Plaintiff has not alleged facts that would justify a claim for punitive damages on the conversion cause of action; and 5) Plaintiff is not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees.

Portions of Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for Replevin

Defendants move to strike the following portions under the first cause of action for replevin:

  1. p. 2, ¶ 6, lines 19-21: "Defendants, and each of them, are in possession of valuable personal property belonging to Plaintiff, consisting of clothes, miscellaneous personal effects, and various documents .... "

  2. p. 2, ¶ 6, lines 21-22: " ... including, but not limited to a possibly expired passport, adoption papers, naturalization papers, and documents relating to Plaintiff's health and dental insurance."

  3. p. 2, ¶ 7, lines 23-24: "In spite of repeated demands therefor over several months, in spite conceding that they are in possession of substantially all of it… "

  4. p. 2, ¶ 7, lines 25-26: " ... and not denying that the property belongs to plaintiff ... "

The Court finds that the portions cited are neither irrelevant, false, or improper, in that they properly support Plaintiff’s requested relief for replevin, which Plaintiff may seek under CCP § 512.010 by subsequently filing an application for writ of possession. Accordingly, the motion to strike these portions of the Complaint is denied.

Portions of Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action for Conversion

Defendants move to strike the following portions under the second cause of action for conversion:

  1. The above-cited portions of Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action; and

  2. p. 3, ¶ 11, line 16: " ... defendants have willfully converted it to their own use and enjoyment."

The Court finds that the portions cited are neither irrelevant, false, or improper, in that they properly support Plaintiff’s cause of action for conversion. Accordingly, the motion to strike these portions of the Complaint is denied.

Claims for Temporary and/or Preliminary Injunctive Relief

Defendants move to strike the following portions pertaining to temporary and preliminary injunctive relief:

  1. Plaintiff's First Cause of Action, p. 3, ¶ 9, lines 4-5: "Plaintiff is entitled to a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunction ... "

  2. Plaintiff’s Prayer, p. 4, line 1: "For a temporary restraining order;"

  3. Plaintiff’s Prayer, p. 4, line 2: "For a preliminary and permanent injunction;”

The Court finds that the portions cited are neither irrelevant, false, or improper, in that Plaintiff is entitled to apply for injunctive relief under CCP § 512.010 and CCP § 513.010 upon or after filing an application for writ of possession. Accordingly, the motion to strike these portions of the Complaint is denied.

Punitive Damages

Punitive damages are authorized by Civil Code section 3294 in non-contract cases “where the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, express or implied . . . .” (Civil Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) A cause of action for conversion can support a request for punitive damages. (Krusi v. Bear, Stearns & Co. (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 664, 678.) However, the pleading must still include sufficient factual allegations to support the request.

Defendants move to strike the following portions pertaining to punitive damages:

  1. Plaintiff's Second Cause of Action, p. 3 ¶ 14, lines 25-27; p. 4, lines 1-2: "Defendants committed the acts alleged herein willfully, maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff and from an improper and evil motive amounting to malice and in conscious disregard of their rights. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover punitive damages from defendants Terrence and Rebecca Cranert, and Does 1-20."

  2. Plaintiff's Prayer, p. 4, line 5: "For punitive damages in an amount to be ascertained at trial;"

The Complaint alleges in conclusory fashion that Defendants acted “willfully, maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff and from an improper and evil motive amounting to malice and in conscious disregard of their rights.” However, there are no facts alleged to support an assertion of fraud, such as a misrepresentation or concealment of material fact by Defendants. Nor are there facts showing Plaintiff was subject to cruel and unjust hardship as required to show oppression. (Civil Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(2).) Finally, malice means conduct “which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” (Civil Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1).) As there are no allegations that Defendants intended to injure Plaintiff, facts must be alleged to show that Defendants disregarded Plaintiff’s right to the personal property and that such disregard was despicable.

Despicable conduct is “so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by most ordinary decent people.” (Mock v. Michigan Millers Mutual Ins. Co. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 306, 330.) Such conduct has been described as having the character of outrage frequently associated with crime. (Tomaselli v. Transamerica Ins. Co. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1287.) While the allegations show that Defendants refused to turn over Plaintiff’s personal property in spite of repeated demands over several months, the Complaint does not sufficiently allege that Defendant’s conduct was despicable.

Accordingly, the motion to strike portions of the Complaint pertaining to punitive damages is granted with leave to amend.

Attorney’s Fees

Defendants move to strike the following portion pertaining to attorney’s fees, on the basis that Plaintiff has failed to set forth any facts or legal basis that she is entitled to them if she prevails:

  1. Plaintiff's Prayer, p. 4, line 7: "For reasonable attorneys' fees as allowed by law .... "

Under CCP § 1021, parties to actions or proceedings are entitled to their costs for attorneys. Furthermore, supported attorneys fee allegations need not be stricken pursuant to a motion to strike, since later discovery may reveal a basis for their recovery. (Camenisch v. Superior Court (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1689, 1699.)

Accordingly, the motion to strike portions of the Complaint pertaining to attorney’s fees is denied.

Conclusion

Defendants’ Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED.

Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of the Complaint is GRANTED WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND WITH RESPECT TO THE PORTIONS IN SUPPORT OF AND REQUESTING PUNITIVE DAMAGES. The Motion to Strike is DENIED AS TO ALL OTHER PORTIONS OF THE COMPLAINT.

Moving party to give notice.