This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/17/2020 at 11:41:28 (UTC).

CAMILLE C CHIDIAC VS LEONIE INDUSTRIES LLC

Case Summary

On 03/21/2018 CAMILLE C CHIDIAC filed an Other lawsuit against LEONIE INDUSTRIES LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are BARBARA M. SCHEPER, JAMES C. CHALFANT, DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB, DEBRE KATZ WEINTRAUB and TERESA A. BEAUDET. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9004

  • Filing Date:

    03/21/2018

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

BARBARA M. SCHEPER

JAMES C. CHALFANT

DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB

DEBRE KATZ WEINTRAUB

TERESA A. BEAUDET

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Defendants, Respondents, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

LEONIE INDUSTRIES LLC

CHIDIAC CAMILLE C.

CHANDLER TABETHA

CHIDIAC CAMILLE

SCOTT BLACK C. LIEUTENANT GENERALRET

THOMAS CHARLES

CHIDIAC-DUPONT REMA

MORGAN HEATHER

BLACK SCOTT C.

BLACK LIEUTENANT GENERAL RET SCOTT C.

Plaintiff and Petitioner

CHIDIAC CAMILLE C.

Not Classified By Court

HEATHER MORGAN

11 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff, Cross Defendant and Not Classified By Court Attorneys

YU JASON T.

ADELSON LEWIS BRIAN ESQ.

HANNA MONA Z

GAGNON PASCALE

WAHLQUIST BECCA J.

YU JASON T ESQ.

MICHELMAN SANFORD LOUIS

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

WAHLQUIST BECCA J.

Plaintiff, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Not Classified By Court Attorneys

HANNA MONA Z

GAGNON PASCALE

YU JASON T ESQ.

COSTELL JEFFREY LEE ESQ.

MICHELMAN SANFORD LOUIS

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

COSTELL JEFFREY LEE ESQ.

Plaintiff, Defendant, Cross Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorneys

YU JASON T ESQ.

MICHELMAN SANFORD LOUIS

 

Court Documents

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF REMA CHIDIAC- DUPONT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS LT. GEN. (RET.) SCOTT C. BLACK, TABETHA CHANDLER, CHARLES THOMAS, REMA CHIDIAC- DUPONT AND HEATHER MORGANS MOTIO

6/9/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF REMA CHIDIAC- DUPONT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS LT. GEN. (RET.) SCOTT C. BLACK, TABETHA CHANDLER, CHARLES THOMAS, REMA CHIDIAC- DUPONT AND HEATHER MORGANS MOTIO

Notice of Motion - NOTICE OF MOTION DEFENDANTS LT. GEN. (RET.) SCOTT C. BLACK, TABETHA CHANDLER, CHARLES THOMAS, REMA CHIDIAC- DUPONT AND HEATHER MORGANS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FO SUMMARY ADJUDI

6/9/2020: Notice of Motion - NOTICE OF MOTION DEFENDANTS LT. GEN. (RET.) SCOTT C. BLACK, TABETHA CHANDLER, CHARLES THOMAS, REMA CHIDIAC- DUPONT AND HEATHER MORGANS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FO SUMMARY ADJUDI

Notice - NOTICE OF MSC SET PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER RE SAME

2/27/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF MSC SET PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER RE SAME

Order - ORDER CHIDIAC'S DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT; DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE SAC

12/13/2019: Order - ORDER CHIDIAC'S DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT; DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE SAC

Notice of Ruling

11/15/2019: Notice of Ruling

Case Management Statement

7/18/2019: Case Management Statement

Proof of Service by Mail

6/11/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITH MOTION TO STRIKE (CCP 430.10); CAS...)

4/16/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITH MOTION TO STRIKE (CCP 430.10); CAS...)

Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF CHIDIAC'S FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

4/9/2019: Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF CHIDIAC'S FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

Request for Judicial Notice

1/30/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Proof of Service by Mail

1/30/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Substitution of Attorney

1/28/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Opposition - Opposition of Defendant Leonie Industries, LLC to Plaintiff Camille Chidiac's Motion to Disqualify;

11/19/2018: Opposition - Opposition of Defendant Leonie Industries, LLC to Plaintiff Camille Chidiac's Motion to Disqualify;

Order - Order re Plaintiff's Ex Parte

10/19/2018: Order - Order re Plaintiff's Ex Parte

UNLIMITED JURISDICTION PLAINTIFF CAMILLE C. CHIDIAC?S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

7/17/2018: UNLIMITED JURISDICTION PLAINTIFF CAMILLE C. CHIDIAC?S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

PLAINTIFF CAMILLE CHIDIAC'S EX PARTE APPIICATION FOR: 1. ORDER ADVANCING THE JUNE 21, 2018 HEARING ON PLAINTIFF CAMILLE CHIDIAC'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION;...ETC.

6/7/2018: PLAINTIFF CAMILLE CHIDIAC'S EX PARTE APPIICATION FOR: 1. ORDER ADVANCING THE JUNE 21, 2018 HEARING ON PLAINTIFF CAMILLE CHIDIAC'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION;...ETC.

DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF CAMILLE C. CHIDIAC IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

4/16/2018: DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF CAMILLE C. CHIDIAC IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF CAMILLE C. CHIDIAC IN SUPPORT EX PARKE APPLICATION

4/13/2018: DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF CAMILLE C. CHIDIAC IN SUPPORT EX PARKE APPLICATION

191 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/09/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Camille C. Chidiac (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/19/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Status Conference (re whether MSJs will proceed on 8/25/20) - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/19/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Status Conference (re whether MSJs will proceed on 8/25/20) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2020
  • DocketNotice (OF HEARING THAT ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL IS SET FOR OCTOBER 23, 2020 AND OTHER HEARINGS AND FILING DEADLINES REGARDING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND TRIAL ARE VACATED); Filed by Camille Chidiac (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2020
  • Docketat 07:43 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 08/04/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
310 More Docket Entries
  • 03/23/2018
  • DocketEx-Parte Application; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2018
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2018
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2018-03-23 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2018
  • DocketMinute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2018
  • DocketPLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO FILE COMPLAINT UNDER SEAL; DECLARATION OF JASON T. YU IN SUPPORT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2018
  • DocketDECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF CAMILLE C. CHIDIAC IN SUPPORT EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO FILE COMPLAINT UNDER SEAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2018
  • DocketCIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Camille C. Chidiac (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: (1) BREACH OF CONTRACT; (2) DECLARATORY RELIEF; AND (3) AN ACCOUNTING

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC699004    Hearing Date: February 19, 2020    Dept: 50

THE HEARING TOMORROW IS OFF CALENDAR.  THE REQUISITE DECLARATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED.

Case Number: BC699004    Hearing Date: December 13, 2019    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

camille c. chidiac,

Plaintiff,

vs.

leonie industries, llc, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC 699004 [c/w BC 710592]

Hearing Date:

December 13, 2019

Hearing Time:

8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

CHIDIAC’S DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT;

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION

Background

Plaintiff Camille C. Chidiac (“Chidiac”) filed this action on March 21, 2018 against Defendant Leonie Industries, LLC (“Leonie”). This action[1] arises from a dispute between Chidiac and Leonie (and Leonie’s Board) over Chidiac’s rights as a Leonie co-founder and co-owner. On May 6, 2019, Chidiac filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Leonie and Defendants Rema Chidiac-DuPont (“DuPont”), Scott C. Black (“Black”), Tabetha Chandler (“Chandler”), Charles Thomas (“Thomas”), and Heather Morgan (“Morgan”). The SAC asserts causes of action for breach of contract, accounting, declaratory relief, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, and conversion.

On June 11, 2019, Leonie, Black, Chandler, Thomas, and DuPont (collectively, the “Leonie Defendants”) filed a Cross-Complaint against Chidiac for (1) intentional interference with contractual relations, (2) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, (3) negligent interference with prospective economic relations, and (4) judicial dissolution under Corporations Code section 17707.03.

Chidiac now demurs to the first, second, and third causes of action of the Cross-Complaint for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Separately, Black, Chandler, Thomas, DuPont, and Morgan (collectively, the “Moving Defendants”) move to strike the punitive damages allegations in the SAC as well as the first cause of action for breach of contract as against DuPont. Both Chidiac’s demurrer and the Moving Defendants’ motion to strike are opposed.

Request for Judicial Notice

The Court grants the Moving Defendants’ request for judicial notice as to the items A and B in the moving papers and as to item A in the reply.

Chidiac’s Demurrer to the Leonie Defendants’ Cross-Complaint

A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. ((Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) “To survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff's proof need not be alleged.” ((C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.) For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded. ((Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-967.) A demurrer “does not admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” ((Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 713.) A demurrer for uncertainty may lie if the failure to label the parties and claims renders the complaint so confusing defendant cannot tell what he or she is supposed to respond to. ((Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.)

The Leonie Defendants allege the following in their Cross-Complaint: Leonie is a private strategic communications company providing information operations, intelligence support, operations research, and other communications related services to various arms of the United States government. (Cross-Compl., ¶ 12.) Leonie has two members: Chidiac and DuPont. (Cross-Compl., ¶¶ 5-6.) Leonie is managed by a Board of Managing Directors (the “Board”), currently composed of Black, Chandler, Thomas, and DuPont. (Cross-Compl., ¶¶ 14-15.) Chidiac is not currently an officer, employee, or Managing Director of Leonie. (Cross-Compl., ¶ 15.)

In or about 2008, the United States government granted a “Top Secret” Facility Security Clearance to Leonie. (Cross-Compl., ¶ 12.) However, that security clearance was granted on the primary condition that the company would be operated and managed by the Board, and not by Chidiac. (Cross-Compl., ¶ 29.) Chidiac resigned as Chief Executive Officer and President of Leonie on or about April 29, 2008. (Cross-Compl., ¶ 29.) Nevertheless, in and around 2010, Chidiac engaged in conduct that adversely affected Leonie’s operations and management. (Cross-Compl., ¶ 32.) Chidiac began making unreasonable demands for company information, disrupting business operations. (Cross-Compl., ¶ 36.) In and around 2012, following a negative media story about Leonie published by USA Today in February 2012, Chidiac created fake websites in the names of the two journalists who authored the USA Today article and posted negative comments on online discussion boards and blogs as a smear campaign against the journalists. (Cross-Compl., ¶ 37.) As a result, United States congressional leaders demanded suspension of Leonie and a full investigation into the company. (Cross-Compl., ¶ 38.) The Department of Defense also conducted an investigation. (Cross-Compl., ¶ 38.) As a result, Leonie lost out on numerous government contracts. (Cross-Compl., ¶ 42.)

The first, second and third causes of action in the Cross-Complaint of the Leonie Defendants are based on Chidiac’s alleged interference with Leonie’s government contracts. (Cross-Compl., ¶¶ 54, 63, 73.) Chidiac contends that all three causes of action must fail because the Leonie Defendants fail to specially identify the contracts at issue and because the claims are all time-barred.

“The elements which a plaintiff must plead to state the cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations are (1) a valid contract between plaintiff and a third party; (2) defendant's knowledge of this contract; (3) defendant's intentional acts designed to induce a breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; (4) actual breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; and (5) resulting damage.” ((Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co. (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1118, 1126.) “Intentional interference with prospective economic advantage has five elements: (1) the existence, between the plaintiff and some third party, of an economic relationship that contains the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the relationship; (3) intentionally wrongful acts designed to disrupt the relationship; (4) actual disruption of the relationship; and (5) economic harm proximately caused by the defendant’s action.” ((Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. v. American Asphalt South, Inc. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 505, 512.) The elements for the tort of negligent interference with prospective economic advantage are: “(1) an economic relationship existed between the plaintiff and a third party which contained a reasonably probable future economic benefit or advantage to plaintiff; (2) the defendant knew of the existence of the relationship and was aware or should have been aware that if it did not act with due care its actions would interfere with this relationship and cause plaintiff to lose in whole or in part the probable future economic benefit or advantage of the relationship; (3) the defendant was negligent; and (4) such negligence caused damage to plaintiff in that the relationship was actually interfered with or disrupted and plaintiff lost in whole or in part the economic benefits or advantage reasonably expected from the relationship.” ((Venhaus v. Shultz (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1078.)

Chidiac contends that the contract or relationship with the third party must be specifically alleged, citing to a number of federal cases in support. (See, e.g., UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Global Eagle Entertainment, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2015) 117 F.Supp.3d 1092, 1115 [“To plead [intentional interference with contractual relations] adequately, counterclaimants must identify the third party or parties with whom they contracted, and the nature and extent of their relationship with that party or parties.”]; id. at p. 1117 [intentional interference with prospective business advantage claim must be dismissed because “none of the purported prospective relationships is identified”]; id. at p. 1118 [negligent interference with prospective business advantage claim must be dismissed because “no specific relationships are alleged”].) In the Cross-Complaint, the Leonie Defendants only allege that “there existed multiple valid contracts between Leonie and the United States government.” (Cross-Compl., ¶ 54.) However, the Leonie Defendants fail to identify the contracts further (such as the services to be performed under the contracts) and fail to identify an actual third party. The Leonie Defendants counter that it is sufficient that they allege that the United States government was the primary contracting party with Leonie. The Court finds that the Leonie Defendants have failed to state facts sufficient to support the first three causes of action in the Cross-Complaint.

Chidiac also argues that the first three causes of action are time-barred because the Leonie Defendants allege that Chidiac’s wrongful acts occurred between 2008 and 2016. The statute of limitations for the first three causes of action is two years. ((Civ. Code, § 339(1).) The Leonie Defendants counter that the Cross-Complaint contains allegations of Chidiac’s wrongful conduct occurring “within the last two years.” However, as noted by Chidiac, the instances in the Cross-Complaint where the Leonie Defendants allege that conduct occurred within the “last two years” are not tethered to any specific conduct or contract. (See Cross-Compl., ¶¶ 54, 57, 63, 67, 73, 77.) Therefore, the only “tethered” wrongful conduct alleged is the conduct that occurred in 2010, 2012, and 2016. (See Cross-Compl., ¶¶ 30-44.) Accordingly, the Court finds that, based on the allegations in the Cross-Complaint, the first three causes of action are barred by the statute of limitations.

Moving Defendants’ Motion to Strike Chidiac’s Second Amended Complaint

A court may strike any “irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading” or any part of a pleading “not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” ((Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) “The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” ((Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)

First, Moving Defendants move to strike Chidiac’s claim for punitive damages because Chidiac fails to set forth the ultimate facts laying out the conduct by the Moving Defendants to support a showing of oppression, fraud, or malice.

To recover punitive damages, a plaintiff must plead and prove that the defendants were guilty of “oppression, fraud, or malice.” ((Civ. Code, § 3294(a).) ’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” and “’[o]ppression’ means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.” ((Civ. Code, § 3294(c).) Fraud is “an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.” ((Civ. Code, § 3294(c).)

Chidiac’s punitive damages claim is based on his fifth cause of action for fraud. The Court notes that the Moving Defendants have not demurred to the fifth cause of action for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. In any event, the Court finds that the allegations alleged in the fifth cause of action are sufficient to show fraud. In support of the fraud cause of action, Chidiac alleges that each of the Moving Defendants had a duty to disclose certain material facts to Chidiac based on their positions on Leonie’s Board and, as to Morgan, her position as Director of Finance. (SAC, ¶¶ 77, 79.) Chidiac alleges that each of the Moving Defendants knew but concealed from Chidiac that, since at least early 2017, DuPont was treating Leonie’s bank accounts as her own to use for purposes unrelated to Leonie’s business and that Leonie was failing to pay its financial obligations. (SAC, ¶ 78.) Chidiac alleges that each of the Moving Defendants intended to induce Chidiac’s reliance and to defraud Chidiac. (SAC, ¶ 80.) Chidiac alleges that he did not know of the material facts, and had he known, he would have taken steps to protect his interest in Leonie. (SAC, ¶ 81.) Finally, Chidiac alleges that he has been injured through unpaid ownership distributions and devaluation of his interest in Leonie relative to DuPont’s. (SAC, ¶ 82.)

Next, the Moving Defendants move to strike the first cause of action for breach of contract as to DuPont on the basis that leave to amend was never granted to add DuPont to the breach of contract cause of action. In the Court’s April 16, 2019 order sustaining in part the Moving Defendants’ demurrer to Chidiac’s First Amended Cross-Complaint in the consolidated action, the Court added the following language: “At the hearing, the parties agreed that Pl[aintiff] will file and serve a second amended complaint that will include the causes of action from the FAC plus the causes of action from the cross-complaint as it would have been amended. Def[endant]s will then respond to the SAC and file and serve their Cross-Complaint to which Pl[aintiff] will respond.” The addition of DuPont as a defendant to Chidiac’s breach of contract cause of action (originally asserted against Leonie only) is not within the scope of the Court’s April 16, 2019 order. Chidiac contends that his counsel advised the Court and all parties that the SAC would add new factual allegations and that no one objected. Even so, the Court’s order does not reflect that leave was granted to add any new factual allegations to the SAC.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court sustains Chidiac’s demurrer to the first, second, and third causes of action of the Cross-Complaint, with leave to amend.

The Court grants the Moving Defendants’ motion to strike as to Chidiac’s first cause of action for breach of contract in the SAC as to DuPont only. The Court denies the Moving Defendants’ motion to strike as to the punitive damages allegations.

The Court orders the Leonie Defendants to file and serve an amended cross-complaint, if any, within 20 days of the date of this Order. If no amended cross-complaint is served within 20

days of the date of this Order, Chidiac is ordered to file and serve his answer to the operative cross-complaint within 30 days of the date of this Order.

Chidiac is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

DATED: December 13, 2019

________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court


[1] The instant case was ordered consolidated with Leonie Industries, LLC v. Chidiac, Case No. BC 710592 on October 29, 2018.