This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/15/2019 at 09:58:54 (UTC).

BRIAN KEYS ET AL VS THE CADILLAC HOTEL ET AL

Case Summary

On 08/17/2017 BRIAN KEYS filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against THE CADILLAC HOTEL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are HOWARD L. HALM and ROBERT B. BROADBELT. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2859

  • Filing Date:

    08/17/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

HOWARD L. HALM

ROBERT B. BROADBELT

 

Party Details

Petitioners and Plaintiffs

BASKERVILLE MAIZE

KEYS BRIAN

Respondents and Defendants

GUZMAN FRANCISCO

SRIS SINNATHAMBY

DOES 1 TO 10

THE CADILLAC HOTEL

SINNATHAMBY SRIS

VENICE DEVELOPMENT INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

DESIMONE V. JAMES ESQ.

DESIMONE VINCENT JAMES

SHARMA POOJA K.

Respondent and Defendant Attorneys

MACKEY ROBERT T. ESQ.

PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG LLP

MACKEY ROBERT THOMAS

HOLLINS ANDREW STEWART ESQ.

HOLLINS ANDREW

DIEFFENBACH RICHARD PAUL

 

Court Documents

Notice of Ruling

6/13/2019: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order

6/13/2019: Minute Order

Association of Attorney

7/19/2019: Association of Attorney

Proof of Service by Mail

7/25/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Proof of Service by Mail

7/25/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Case Management Statement

7/25/2019: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

7/30/2019: Case Management Statement

Minute Order

8/14/2019: Minute Order

DEFENDANT THE CADILLAC HOTEL'S JOINDER OF DEFENDANT SRIS SINNATHAMBY'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR STAY OF CIVIL PROCEEDINGS PENDING OUTCOME OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DEFENDANT SRIS SINNATHA

2/22/2018: DEFENDANT THE CADILLAC HOTEL'S JOINDER OF DEFENDANT SRIS SINNATHAMBY'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR STAY OF CIVIL PROCEEDINGS PENDING OUTCOME OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DEFENDANT SRIS SINNATHA

Proof of Service

2/27/2018: Proof of Service

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

2/27/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SRIS SINNATHAMBY'S MOTION FOR STAY OF THIS CIVIL PROCEEDING PENDING THE OUTCOME OF CRIMINAL ACTION ENTITLED PEOPLE V. SINNAT

2/28/2018: PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SRIS SINNATHAMBY'S MOTION FOR STAY OF THIS CIVIL PROCEEDING PENDING THE OUTCOME OF CRIMINAL ACTION ENTITLED PEOPLE V. SINNAT

DEFENDANT SRIS SINNATHAMBY'S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY CIVIL PROCEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF UNDERLYING CRIMINAL ACTION

3/6/2018: DEFENDANT SRIS SINNATHAMBY'S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY CIVIL PROCEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF UNDERLYING CRIMINAL ACTION

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

3/8/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

3/9/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

3/13/2018: ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

Minute Order

3/13/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF RULING ON MOTION TO STAY. CIVIL PROCEEDINGS PENDING CRIMINAL TRIAL; CONTINUANCE OF MOTION AND OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

3/14/2018: NOTICE OF RULING ON MOTION TO STAY. CIVIL PROCEEDINGS PENDING CRIMINAL TRIAL; CONTINUANCE OF MOTION AND OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

57 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/09/2020
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 53 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2020
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 53 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 53, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 53, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Status Conference (reStatus of Criminal Case) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Case Management Conference; Status Conference re: Status of C...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2019
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by The Cadillac Hotel (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by Brian Keys (Plaintiff); Maize Baskerville (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2019
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Brian Keys (Plaintiff); Maize Baskerville (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by Brian Keys (Plaintiff); Maize Baskerville (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2019
  • DocketAssociation of Attorney; Filed by The Cadillac Hotel (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
119 More Docket Entries
  • 09/22/2017
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Brian Keys (Plaintiff); Maize Baskerville (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2017
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Brian Keys (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2017
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2017
  • DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2017
  • DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Brian Keys (Plaintiff); Maize Baskerville (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2017
  • DocketPLAINTIFFS' VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 51.7; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: BC672859 Hearing Date: December 22, 2021 Dept: 53

\r\n\r\n

Superior Court of California

\r\n\r\n

County of Los Angeles – Central District

\r\n\r\n

Department\r\n53

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n
\r\n

brian keys\r\n \r\n , et al.

\r\n

\r\n

\r\n \r\n Plaintiffs,

\r\n

\r\n

\r\n

vs.

\r\n

\r\n

\r\n

THe Cadillac Hotel\r\n \r\n , et al.,

\r\n

\r\n

\r\n \r\n Defendants.

\r\n
\r\n

Case\r\n No.:

\r\n
\r\n

BC672859

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

Hearing\r\n Date:

\r\n
\r\n

December\r\n 22, 2021

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

Time:

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n \r\n \r\n 10:00 a.m.

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n

[Tentative]\r\n Order RE:

\r\n

\r\n

\r\n

(1) \r\n DEFENDANT\r\n SINNATHAMBY’S deMURRER

\r\n

\r\n

(2) \r\n DEFENDANT\r\n SINNATHAMBY’S MOTION TO STRIKE

\r\n

\r\n

(3) \r\n DEFENDANT\r\n VENICE DEVELOPMENT, INC.’S DEMURRER

\r\n

\r\n

(4) \r\n DEFENDANT\r\n VENICE DEVELOPMENT, INC.’S MOTION to strike

\r\n

\r\n
\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Sris Sinnathamby

\r\n\r\n

RESPONDING\r\nPARTY: Plaintiff Brian Keys

\r\n\r\n
  1. Defendant\r\nSinnathamby’s Demurrer

  2. Defendant\r\nSinnathamby’s Motion to Strike

\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in\r\nconnection with each motion.

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Venice Development,\r\nInc.

\r\n\r\n

RESPONDING\r\nPARTY: Plaintiff Brian Keys

\r\n\r\n
  1. Defendant\r\nVenice Development, Inc.’s Demurrer

  2. Defendant\r\nVenice Development, Inc.’s Motion to Strike

\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in\r\nconnection with each motion.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

BACKGROUND

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiffs Brian Keys (“Keys”) and Maize Baskerville (“Baskerville”) filed\r\nthis action on August 17, 2017 (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). Plaintiffs filed the operative Second Amended\r\nComplaint (“SAC”) on March 19, 2018, against defendants The Cadillac Hotel and\r\nSris Sinnathamby (“Sinnathamby”). Plaintiffs\r\namended the SAC on May 1, 2020, to substitute defendant Venice Development,\r\nInc. (“Venice Development”) as the true name for the defendant sued under the\r\nfictitious name Doe 1. On April 2, 2020,\r\nthe action was dismissed as to plaintiff Baskerville.

\r\n\r\n

The SAC alleges the following causes of action: (1) violation of California Civil Code section\r\n51.7, (2) violation of California Civil Code section 52.1, (3) battery and\r\nassault, (4) violation of California Civil Code section 43, (5) intentional\r\ninfliction of emotional distress, and (6) negligent infliction of emotional\r\ndistress.

\r\n\r\n

The SAC alleges the following. The\r\nCadillac Hotel is a hotel located in Venice, California. On or about August 30, 2015, Keys was asleep on\r\npublic property near the hotel, when the hotel’s security guard (identified as\r\n“Guzman”) walked up to Keys and told him, “You guys can’t sleep here.” (SAC, 11-12.) Keys responded, “You can’t tell me where I\r\ncan sleep.” (SAC, 12.) Guzman then drew a gun in a threatening\r\nmanner toward Keys, and Keys moved away from the area and towards the beach,\r\nwhere Baskerville was seated in his wheelchair. \r\n(SAC, 12.) Sinnathamby, the\r\nowner of the hotel, came over and yelled at Plaintiffs, telling them that they\r\ncannot sleep there. (SAC, 13.) Sinnathamby got enraged at Baskerville’s remarks\r\nand ordered Guzman to “shoot those niggers.” \r\n(SAC, 15.) At Sinnathamby’s\r\ncommand, Guzman fired four shots in the air and in the direction of\r\nPlaintiffs. (SAC, 16.) As a result, Keys was hit on the legs and\r\nshin by the bullets. (SAC, 17.) The bullets came very close to striking\r\nBaskerville. (SAC, 18.) Terrified and in fear for his life, Baskerville\r\npleaded with Sinnathamby to tell Guzman to put the gun away, but Sinnathamby\r\nignored him. (SAC, 19.) Hearing sirens from a distance, Sinnathamby urged\r\nGuzman to leave the premises. (SAC, \r\n20.) Guzman fled the scene. (SAC, 20.) \r\nGuzman was acting in the course and scope of his employment or agency\r\nwith defendants when he shot Keys. (SAC,\r\n 6.)

\r\n\r\n

Defendants Sinnathamby and Venice Development (collectively,\r\n“Defendants”) demur to the entire SAC on the ground that it is uncertain. (Code\r\nCiv. Proc., 430.10, subd. (f).) Defendant Sinnathamby also demurs to the fifth\r\ncause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and sixth\r\ncause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress, contending that\r\nthey fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code\r\nCiv. Proc., 430.10, subd. (e).) Defendants\r\nmove to strike the punitive damages allegations and prayer for punitive damages\r\nin the SAC. Keys opposes the demurrers\r\nand motions to strike.

\r\n\r\n

REQUESTS\r\nFOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

\r\n\r\n

The court grants defendant\r\nSinnathamby’s request for judicial notice, filed September 30, 2019, as to\r\nExhibits A and B.

\r\n\r\n

The court grants defendant Venice Development’s request for judicial\r\nnotice, filed July 15, 2020, as to Exhibits A and B.

\r\n\r\n

DEMURRERS TO THE SAC

\r\n\r\n

A demurrer can only be used\r\nto challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or\r\nfrom matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank\r\nv. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) \r\n“To survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient\r\nto state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form\r\npart of the plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged.” (C.A.\r\nv. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861,\r\n872.) For the purpose of testing the\r\nsufficiency of the cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all\r\nmaterial facts properly pleaded. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992)\r\n2 Cal.4th 962, 966–967.) A demurrer\r\n“does not admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Daar\r\nv. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 713.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n
  1. Uncertainty

\r\n\r\n

Defendants demur to the\r\nentire SAC, and all causes of action, on the ground that they are\r\nuncertain. (Code Civ. Proc., 430.10,\r\nsubd. (f).) As used in Code of Civil\r\nProcedure section 430.10, subdivision (f), “‘uncertain’ includes ambiguous and\r\nunintelligible.” “[D]emurrers for\r\nuncertainty are disfavored.” (Lickiss\r\nv. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125,\r\n1135.) “A demurrer for uncertainty is\r\nstrictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respect uncertain,\r\nbecause ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures. [Citations.]” \r\n(Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612,\r\n616.)

\r\n\r\n

Defendants contend that the SAC is uncertain because Keys’s testimony,\r\nin a criminal case brought against Guzman, undermines and contradicts\r\nPlaintiffs’ allegations in the SAC. However,\r\nDefendants are asking the court to accept as true the matters stated in its\r\njudicially noticed documents. “Although\r\nin ruling on a demurrer courts may take judicial notice of files in other\r\njudicial proceedings [citation], this does not mean that they take judicial notice\r\nof the truth of factual matters asserted therein.” (Ramsden v. Western Union (1977) 71\r\nCal.App.3d 873, 879.) Here, even if the\r\ncourt has taken judicial notice of Keys’s testimony in the criminal proceeding,\r\nthe court cannot accept as true the matters stated in that testimony.

\r\n\r\n

The\r\ncourt finds that the SAC and all causes of action alleged are not uncertain\r\nbecause they are neither ambiguous nor unintelligible. (Code Civ. Proc., 420.10, subd. (f).) The court therefore overrules Defendants’\r\ndemurrers to the SAC on the ground that it, and all causes of action,\r\nare uncertain.

\r\n\r\n
  1. Fifth\r\nCause of Action – Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Sinnathamby demurs to Plaintiffs’ fifth cause of\r\naction for intentional infliction of emotional distress on the ground that it fails\r\nto state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., 430.10, subd.\r\n(e).)

\r\n\r\n

“A cause of action for\r\nintentional infliction of emotional distress exists when there is “‘“‘(1)\r\nextreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing,\r\nor reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2)\r\nthe plaintiff\'s suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual\r\nand proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant\'s outrageous\r\nconduct.’”’” [Citations.]” (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th\r\n1035, 1050.)

\r\n\r\n

Here, the court finds that\r\nthe SAC alleges facts sufficient to establish the first element. The SAC alleges the following. Sinnathamby, as the owner of The Cadillac\r\nHotel, ordered the hotel’s security guard (Guzman) to shoot Keys. (SAC, 15.) On that command, Guzman shot in the air and\r\nin the direction of Keys, shooting Keys. \r\n(SAC, 16.) In\r\naddition, all defendants were agents, servants, or employees of one another,\r\nand they ratified Guzman’s actions. (SAC,\r\n 7-8.) The court finds that those\r\nallegations satisfy the first element because they show that Defendants engaged\r\nin extreme and outrageous conduct, with the intention of causing, or in reckless\r\ndisregard of the probability of causing, Keys emotional distress.

\r\n\r\n

The court also finds that the\r\nSAC alleges facts sufficient to establish the second and third elements. The SAC alleges that, as the result of\r\nDefendants’ conduct (including Sinnathamby’s ordering Guzman to shoot Keys), Keys\r\nsuffered severe emotional and mental distress, anguish, humiliation,\r\nembarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort, anxiety, physical pain, and\r\nsuffering. (SAC,\r\n 15, 55.) In addition, some, if not\r\nall, of those injuries are reasonably certain to be permanent. (SAC, 55.) The court finds that those allegations\r\nsatisfy the second and third elements because they establish severe or extreme\r\nemotional distress and actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress\r\nby Defendants’ outrageous conduct.

\r\n\r\n

For the reasons set forth above, the court finds that the SAC states\r\nfacts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for intentional infliction of\r\nemotional distress. (Code Civ.\r\nProc., 430.10, subd. (e).) The\r\ncourt therefore overrules Defendants’ demurrer as to Plaintiffs’ fifth cause of\r\naction for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

\r\n\r\n
  1. Sixth\r\nCause of Action – Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Sinnathamby demurs to Plaintiffs’ sixth cause of\r\naction for negligent infliction of emotional distress on the ground that it\r\nfails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., 430.10, subd. (e).)\r\n Defendant Sinnathamby\r\ncontends that the SAC does not allege any facts establishing that\r\nDefendants owed a duty to Plaintiffs, or that they breached that duty, causing\r\ndamage to Plaintiffs.

\r\n\r\n

“‘“[The] negligent causing of emotional distress is not an independent\r\ntort but the tort of negligence . . . .’ \r\n[Citation.] ‘The traditional\r\nelements of duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages apply. [ ] Whether a\r\ndefendant owes a duty of care is a question of law. Its existence depends upon the foreseeability\r\nof the risk and upon a weighing of policy considerations for and against\r\nimposition of liability.’” [Citation.]” (Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric\r\nMedical Clinic, Inc. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 583, 588.) A “direct victim” case is one in which the\r\nplaintiff’s claim of emotional distress is based on the violation of a duty\r\nthat the defendant owes directly to the plaintiff. (Ragland v. U.S. Bank National Assn.\r\n(2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 182, 205.) “[D]uty\r\nis found where the plaintiff is a ‘direct victim,’ in that the emotional distress\r\ndamages result from a duty owed the plaintiff ‘that is “assumed by the defendant\r\nor imposed on the defendant as a matter of law, or that arises out of a\r\nrelationship between the two.”’ \r\n[Citation.]” (McMahon v. Craig\r\n(2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1502, 1510.) \r\n

\r\n\r\n

Here, Defendants had a duty to use reasonable care to prevent harm to\r\nKeys and others. (Civ. Code, \r\n1714, subd. (a) [“Everyone is responsible, not only for\r\nthe result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to\r\nanother by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his\r\nor her property or person . . . .”]; Judicial Council of California Civil Jury\r\nInstructions, CACI 401.) “‘[T]here is a\r\nduty to refrain from the negligent infliction of serious mental distress.’” (Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals\r\n(1980) 27 Cal.3d 916, 928, quoting Rodrigues v. State (1970) 52 Hawaii\r\n472 P.2d 509, 520.)

\r\n\r\n

The SAC alleges breach of duty of care by alleging that Sinnathamby\r\nordered his employee, Guzman, to shoot Keys. \r\n(SAC, 15.) The\r\nSAC also alleges the elements of causation and damages by alleging that, as a\r\nresult of Defendants’ conduct, Keys was physically injured and suffered severe\r\nemotional and mental distress. (SAC,\r\n 16, 17, 60.)

\r\n\r\n

For the reasons set forth above, the court finds that the SAC states facts\r\nsufficient to constitute a cause of action for negligent infliction of\r\nemotional distress. (Code Civ.\r\nProc., 430.10, subd. (e).) The court\r\ntherefore overrules Defendants’ demurrer\r\nto the sixth cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

\r\n\r\n

MOTIONS TO STRIKE

\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and\r\nupon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter\r\ninserted in any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., 436, subd. (a).) The court may also strike all or any part of\r\nany pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a\r\ncourt rule, or an order of the court. (Id., 436,\r\nsubd. (b).) The grounds for moving\r\nto strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial\r\nnotice. (Id. 437, subd. (a).)

\r\n\r\n

Defendants move to strike the punitive damages allegations and prayer\r\nfor punitive damages in the SAC. They contend that those allegations are\r\nimproper because the SAC fails to allege that Defendants acted with oppression,\r\nfraud, or malice.

\r\n\r\n

“In order to state a prima\r\nfacie claim for punitive damages, a complaint must set forth the elements as\r\nstated in the general punitive damage statute, Civil Code section 3294. [Citation.] \r\nThese statutory elements include allegations that the defendant has been\r\nguilty of oppression, fraud or malice. \r\n(Civ. Code, 3294, subd. (a).)” (Turman\r\nv. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53,\r\n63.) “ ‘Oppression’ means despicable\r\nconduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious\r\ndisregard of that person’s rights.” \r\n(Civ. Code, 3294, subd. (c)(2).) \r\n“ ‘Fraud’ means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment\r\nof a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the\r\ndefendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or\r\notherwise causing injury.” (Civ. Code, \r\n3294, subd. (c)(3).) “ ‘Malice’ means\r\nconduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to plaintiff or despicable\r\nconduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious\r\ndisregard for the rights or safety of others.” \r\n(Civ. Code, 3294, subd. (c)(1).)

\r\n\r\n

Here, the court finds\r\nthat the SAC alleges facts establishing oppression and malice. The SAC alleges that Sinnathamby (using a\r\nracial slur to refer to Keys) ordered Guzman, his employee, to shoot Keys, and that\r\nGuzman shot Keys. Those allegations are\r\nsufficient to establish oppression, because they show that Defendants subjected\r\nKeys to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of his rights. Those allegations also establish malice,\r\nbecause they show that Defendants intended to cause injury to Keys, or engaged\r\nin despicable conduct, with a\r\nwillful and conscious disregard for the rights or safety of Keys. \r\nThe court therefore denies Defendants’ motion to strike portions\r\nof the SAC, including its prayer for punitive damages. (Code Civ. Proc., 436, subd. (a).)

\r\n\r\n

ORDER

\r\n\r\n

For the reasons set\r\nforth above, court overrules defendants\r\nSris Sinnathamby and Venice Development, Inc.’s demurrers to the Second Amended Complaint.

\r\n\r\n

The court denies\r\ndefendants Sris Sinnathamby and Venice Development, Inc.’s motions to strike portions of the Second\r\nAmended Complaint.

\r\n\r\n

The court orders\r\ndefendants Sris Sinnathamby and Venice Development, Inc. to file answers to the Second Amended\r\nComplaint within 20 days of the date of this order.

\r\n\r\n

The court orders plaintiff\r\nBrian Keys to give notice\r\nof this ruling.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

IT IS SO ORDERED.

\r\n\r\n

DATED: \r\nDecember 22, 2021

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

_____________________________

\r\n\r\n

Robert B. Broadbelt III

\r\n\r\n

Judge of the Superior Court

\r\n\r\n'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where VENICE DEVELOPMENT INC. A CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases where Cadillac Hotel Funding, LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer DESIMONE, V. JAMES