This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/16/2021 at 21:43:57 (UTC).

WOODLAND HILLS CAPITAL, LLC VS BRUCE ELIOT FISHMAN, M.D. F.I.C.S., INC., ET AL.

Case Summary

On 04/30/2021 WOODLAND HILLS CAPITAL, LLC filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against BRUCE ELIOT FISHMAN, M D F I C S , INC . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******6490

  • Filing Date:

    04/30/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

WOODLAND HILLS CAPITAL LLC DBA ENCINO TOWER PARTNERS

Defendants

FISHMAN BRUCE ELIOT

BRUCE ELIOT FISHMAN M.D. F.I.C.S. INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

VIVOLI MICHAEL

VIVOLI MICHAEL W.

Defendant Attorney

DIBA KASEY

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW)

11/2/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW) OF 11/02/2021

11/2/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW) OF 11/02/2021

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

11/8/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITH MOTION TO STRIKE (CCP 430.10))

Opposition - OPPOSITION MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

10/6/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Opposition - OPPOSITION MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE

10/6/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE

Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT, BRUCE ELIOT FISHMANS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

10/12/2021: Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT, BRUCE ELIOT FISHMANS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT, BRUCE ELIOT FISHMANS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

10/12/2021: Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT, BRUCE ELIOT FISHMANS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW)

10/18/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW) OF 10/18/2021

10/18/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW) OF 10/18/2021

Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

9/17/2021: Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

9/17/2021: Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

9/14/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

Amended Complaint - AMENDED COMPLAINT (1ST)

8/20/2021: Amended Complaint - AMENDED COMPLAINT (1ST)

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

8/30/2021: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Case Management Statement

8/30/2021: Case Management Statement

Proof of Service by Mail

8/30/2021: Proof of Service by Mail

Case Management Statement

8/30/2021: Case Management Statement

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

9/2/2021: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

18 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/14/2022
  • Hearing09/14/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 34 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2022
  • Hearing09/07/2022 at 09:00 AM in Department 34 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 34; Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10))); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 34; Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2021
  • Docketat 3:54 PM in Department 34; Non-Appearance Case Review

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Non-Appearance Case Review) of 11/02/2021); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Non-Appearance Case Review)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 34; Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2021
  • Docketat 3:22 PM in Department 34; Non-Appearance Case Review

    Read MoreRead Less
20 More Docket Entries
  • 06/30/2021
  • DocketDemurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10); Filed by Bruce Eliot Fishman (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2021
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Woodland Hills Capital, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/25/2021
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Woodland Hills Capital, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/25/2021
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Woodland Hills Capital, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2021
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Woodland Hills Capital, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2021
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Woodland Hills Capital, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2021
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Woodland Hills Capital, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 21STCV16490 Hearing Date: November 8, 2021 Dept: 34

SUBJECT: Demurrer

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving Party: Defendant\r\nBruce Eliot Fishman

\r\n\r\n

Resp. Party: Plaintiff\r\nWoodland Hills Capital, LLC

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SUBJECT: Motion\r\nto Strike

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving\r\nParty: Defendants\r\nBruce Eliot Fishman, M.D.F.I.C.S., Inc. (“FIDS”) and Bruce Eliot Fishman

\r\n\r\n

Resp. Party: Plaintiff\r\nWoodland Hills Capital, LLC

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant’s Demurrer to the First\r\nCause of Action for Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations\r\npursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e) is OVERRULED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant’s Demurrer to the Second\r\nCause of Action for Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic\r\nAdvantage pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e) is SUSTAINED\r\nwith leave to amend.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant’s General Demurrer to the\r\nEntire Complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e) is\r\nOVERRULED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants’ Motion to Strike is\r\nGRANTED with leave to amend.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nBACKGROUND

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

This is a case focused on\r\noverstaying one’s welcome. Plaintiff accuses Defendants of allowing their lease\r\nwith Plaintiff to lapse and holding over their possession of Plaintiff property\r\nin such manner that it interfered with new leasing prospects, causing damages.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On April 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed\r\nits initial Complaint for (1) intentional interference with contractual\r\nrelations, (2) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage,\r\n(3) breach of lease, (4) breach of guaranty, and (5) ejectment. (Motion to\r\nStrike, p. 3:18-20.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On August 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed\r\na First Amended Complaint. On September\r\n17, 2021, Defendant Bruce Eliot Fishman filed the present Demurrer and Motion\r\nto Strike. On October 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed Oppositions to Defendant’s\r\nDemurrer and Defendants’ Motion to Strike. On October 12, 2021, Defendant filed\r\na reply brief to Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Demurrer and a reply brief to\r\nPlaintiff’s Opposition to the Motion to Strike.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nANALYSIS

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A. \r\nDemurrer

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

1. \r\nLegal\r\nStandard

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A demurrer is a pleading used to test the\r\nlegal sufficiency of other pleadings. (Cty. of Fresno v. Shelton (1998)\r\n66 Cal.App.4th 996, 1008–09; Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)\r\nIt raises issues of law, not fact, regarding the form or content of the\r\nopposing party’s pleading. It is not the function of the demurrer to challenge\r\nthe truthfulness of the complaint. (Unruh-Haxton v. Regents of Univ. of\r\nCalifornia (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 343, 365, as modified (May 15, 2008).)\r\nFor purpose of the ruling on the demurrer, all facts pleaded in the complaint are\r\nassumed to be true, however improbable they may be. (CCP §§ 422.10, 589.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A demurrer can be used only to challenge\r\ndefects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters\r\noutside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985)\r\n39 Cal.3d 311.) No other extrinsic evidence can be considered (i.e., no\r\n“speaking demurrers”). A demurrer is brought under Code of Civil Procedure §\r\n430.10 (grounds), § 430.30 (as to any matter on its face or from which judicial\r\nnotice may be taken), and § 430.50(a) (can be taken to the entire complaint or\r\nany cause of action within).

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A demurrer may be brought under Code of Civil\r\nProcedure section 430.10, subdivision (e) if insufficient facts are stated to\r\nsupport the cause of action asserted. A demurrer for uncertainty may be brought\r\npursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (f). “A\r\ndemurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in\r\nsome respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern\r\ndiscovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14\r\nCal.App.4th 612, 616.) “In general, ‘demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored,\r\nand are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant\r\ncannot reasonably respond.’” (Lickiss v. Financial Industry Regulatory\r\nAuthority (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The demurring party must file with the court,\r\nand serve on the other party, the: (1) demurrer; (2) notice of hearing; (3)\r\nmemorandum of points and authorities; and (4) proof of service. (See Cal. Rules\r\nof Court, rule 3.1112(a), rule 3.1300(c), rule 3.1320; Code Civ. Proc., §\r\n1005(b).) “A demurrer shall distinctly specify the grounds upon which any of\r\nthe objections to the complaint . . . \r\nare taken. Unless it does so, it may be disregarded.” (CCP § 430.60.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

2. \r\nDiscussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Bruce Eliot Fishman\r\ndemurs to both causes of action of the Complaint on the following grounds on\r\nthe grounds that they fail to state sufficient grounds for to constitute a\r\ncause of action. (Demurrer, p. 3:2-14.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

a. \r\nFirst\r\nCause of Action for Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

1) \r\nLegal\r\nStandard

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

“[A] stranger to a contract may be\r\nliable in tort for intentionally interfering with the performance of the\r\ncontract.” (Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co.\r\n(1990) 50 Cal.3d 1118, 1126.) The elements of the tort are: “(1) a valid\r\ncontract between plaintiff and a third party; (2) defendant\'s knowledge of this\r\ncontract; (3) defendant\'s intentional acts designed to induce a breach or\r\ndisruption of the contractual relationship; (4) actual breach or disruption of\r\nthe contractual relationship; and (5) resulting damage.” (Ibid.)” (I-CA\r\nEnterprises, Inc. v. Palram Americas, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 257,\r\n289.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

2) \r\nAnalysis

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

“To state a claim for disruption of\r\na contractual relation, the plaintiff need not show the defendant induced an\r\nactual or inevitable breach of the contract. It is sufficient to show the\r\ndefendant\'s conduct made the plaintiff\'s performance, and inferentially\r\nenjoyment, under the contract more burdensome or costly. (Pacific Gas &\r\nElectric Co., 50 Cal.3d at 1129.) But in Pacific Gas & Electric,\r\nthe Supreme Court held the plaintiff must show the defendant did more than\r\ninduce the contract\'s other party to bring litigation on a potentially\r\nmeritorious, or colorable, claim. (Id. at pp. 1130, 1137.)” (Golden\r\nWest Baseball Co. v. City of Anaheim (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 11, 51.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant argues that Plaintiff shows\r\nno evidence of Defendant’s intentional acts designed to induce a breach or\r\ndisruption of the contractual relationship. (Demurrer, p. 2:18-25.) However,\r\nPlaintiff need not show actual or inevitable breach, just that Defendant’s\r\nactions made Plaintiff’s performance more costly. This is undoubtably true in\r\nthe present case: Defendant FICS held over in a property, without further\r\npayment or a new lease, after Plaintiff provided notice that a new contract was\r\nin existence with a different tenant and that Plaintiff could not perform under\r\nthat contract due to Defendant’s direct actions. (FAC, ¶¶ 11-15.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Further, the Court finds no\r\nevidence that FICS’ business decision making involves any person or persons\r\noutside of Dr. Fishman. The argument that Dr. Fishman acted in his official\r\ncapacity as principal and officer of Defendant FICS but not as an individual\r\nwhen allegedly engaged in tortious acts is not persuasive. This position allows\r\nFICS to shield Dr. Fishman from individual liability. No evidence has been offered\r\nby either Defendant to show that any other person or entity outside of Dr.\r\nFishman influenced FICS’ decision to overstay its lease. No evidence has been\r\noffered by either Defendant to show that Dr. Fishman was not directly and\r\nsolely responsible for FICS’s indifference toward Plaintiff’s new contract –\r\nresulting in an undefined, holdover rent-free tenancy that materially impeded\r\nPlaintiff’s new business venture. Defendant offers no evidence to suggest that\r\nDr. Fishman did not participate in the wrong of the holdover stay individually,\r\nand discovery would allow the parties the opportunity to discern whether Dr.\r\nFishman’s individual capacity may be faulted for this tort. The Court finds\r\nthat Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint met the elements of intentional\r\ninterference with contractual relations in the present case.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant’s Demurrer to the First\r\nCause of Action for Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations\r\npursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e) is OVERRULED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

b. \r\nSecond\r\nCause of Action for Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic\r\nAdvantage

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

1) \r\nLegal\r\nStandard

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

"The elements of the tort of\r\nintentional interference with prospective economic advantage are (1) an\r\neconomic relationship between the plaintiff and some third party, with the\r\nprobability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant\'s\r\nknowledge of the relationship; (3) intentional acts on the part of the\r\ndefendant designed to disrupt the relationship; (4) actual disruption of the\r\nrelationship; and (5) economic harm to the plaintiff proximately caused by the\r\nacts of the defendant. (Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003)\r\n29 Cal.4th 1134, 1153, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 29, 63 P.3d 937.)" (Port Medical\r\nWellness, Inc. v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company (2018) 24\r\nCal.App.5th 153, 182–183.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

2) \r\nAnalysis

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In Ramona Manor, the defendant’s decision “to hold over beyond the\r\ntermination of the lease under which it had possession was made with the\r\nknowledge that such action would frustrate the legitimate contractual\r\nexpectations of a specific, albeit unnamed, new lessee. That is all it was\r\nrequired to know to incur liability.” (Ramona Manor Convalescent Hospital,\r\n177 Cal.App.3d at 1133, as modified on denial of reh\'g (Mar. 5, 1986).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

According to the Plaintiff’s FAC,\r\nDefendants, including Dr. Fishman, had knowledge of potential economic benefits\r\nto Plaintiff of a new tenant, “because Defendants knew that Plaintiff’s new\r\ntenant would be paying a higher rent for the Premises, and would generate\r\nsubstantial income for Plaintiff in the form of tenant improvements to the\r\nPremises and other improvements to the overall Property” that would benefit\r\nPlaintiff into the future. (FAC, ¶ 17, p. 6:12-15.) Given this, the decision to\r\nhold over past FICS’ lease mirrors the defendant in Ramona Manor who held\r\nover with the knowledge that such action would frustrate the legitimate\r\ncontractual expectations of a specific, albeit unnamed, new lessee.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

However, to constitute Intentional\r\nInterference with Prospective Economic Advantage, Plaintiff must show facts\r\nthat that Defendant FICS’ conduct was wrongful “by some measure beyond the fact\r\nof the interference itself.” (Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.,\r\nInc. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 376, 393.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff’s FAC does not plead facts\r\nthat show Dr. Fishman’s conduct to be wrongful beyond the fact of the\r\ninterference itself under Della Penna.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant’s Demurrer to the Second\r\nCause of Action for Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic\r\nAdvantage pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e) is SUSTAINED\r\nwith leave to amend.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

c. \r\nGeneral\r\nDemurrer to the Entire Complaint

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant’s General Demurrer to the\r\nEntire Complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e) is\r\nOVERRULED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

B. \r\nMotion\r\nto Strike

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

1. \r\nLegal\r\nStandard

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

"Any party, within the time\r\nallowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to\r\nstrike the whole or any part thereof . . ..” (CCP § 435, subd. (b)(1).)\r\n"The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time\r\nin its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any\r\nirrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (b) Strike out\r\nall or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws\r\nof this state, a court rule, or an order of the court." (CCP § 436.) “The\r\ngrounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged\r\npleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial\r\nnotice." (CCP § 437, subd. (a).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Punitive damages may be imposed\r\nwhere it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been\r\nguilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) “Malice” is conduct intended by the defendant\r\nto cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on with\r\na willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1).) Despicable conduct is “conduct which is so\r\nvile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be\r\nlooked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people. Such conduct has been described as ‘having\r\nthe character of outrage frequently associated with crime.’” (Tomaselli v.\r\nTransamerica Ins. Co. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1287.) “Fraud” means an\r\nintentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known\r\nto the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby\r\ndepriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.\r\n(Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c).) “‘Punitive damages are proper only when the\r\ntortious conduct rises to levels of extreme indifference to the plaintiff’s\r\nrights, a level which decent citizens should not have to tolerate.’ [Citation.]”\r\n(Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1210.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

2. \r\nDiscussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants move the Court for an\r\norder striking the following portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

PRAYERS\r\nFOR RELIEF: ATTORNEY’S FEES

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

“1.\r\nPage 5, ¶ 15, lines 25-27: “…Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive\r\ndamages against FICS and Fishman in a sum sufficient to punish Defendants’\r\nmisconduct and to make an example of their misconduct and to deter others from\r\nengaging in similar misconduct.”

\r\n\r\n

“2.\r\nPage 7, ¶ 21, lines 13-15: “…Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive\r\ndamages to punish Defendants’ misconduct and to make an example of their\r\nmisconduct to deter others from engaging in similar misconduct.”

\r\n\r\n

“3.\r\nPage 8, lines 27-28, PRAYER, “For punitive damages in a sum sufficient to\r\npunish Defendants’ misconduct and deter others from engaging in similar\r\nmisconduct.””

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(Motion\r\nto Strike, p. 2:4-13.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants argue that punitive\r\ndamages must be pled specifically and factually and proven by clear and\r\nconvincing evidence. (Motion to Strike, pp. 5:17; 6:14.) Defendants argue that\r\na sufficient factual foundation has not been laid to support punitive damages,\r\nas malice, oppression, and fraud have not been sufficiently pleaded. (Motion to\r\nStrike, p. 3:13-15.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants are correct that facts\r\nsupporting allegations of oppression, fraud, or malice have not been pled in\r\nPlaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. Under Civ. Code, § 3294(a) punitive\r\ndamages may not be imposed absent such facts.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants’ Motion to Strike is GRANTED\r\nwith leave to amend.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nCONCLUSION

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant’s Demurrer to the First\r\nCause of Action for Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations\r\npursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e) is OVERRULED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant’s Demurrer to the Second\r\nCause of Action for Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic\r\nAdvantage pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e) is SUSTAINED\r\nwith leave to amend.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant’s General Demurrer to the\r\nEntire Complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e) is\r\nOVERRULED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants’ Motion to Strike is\r\nGRANTED with leave to amend.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

'b'

Case Number: 21STCV16490 Hearing Date: September 7, 2021 Dept: 34

SUBJECT: (1) Demurrer

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving Party: Defendant Bruce Eliot Fishman

\r\n\r\n

Resp. Party: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(2) Motion to\r\nStrike

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving Party: Defendants Bruce Eliot Fishman and Bruce Eliot Fishman, M.D.F.I.C.S., Inc.

\r\n\r\n

Resp. Party: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The demurrer is OVERRULED as moot.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The motion to strike is DENIED as moot.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

BACKGROUND:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

This action arises out of a breach of a\r\nwritten lease and guaranty regarding a commercial office building located at\r\n16661 Ventura Boulevard, California 91436. (FAC, ¶ 1.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On April 30, 2021, Plaintiff Woodland Hills Capital, LLC doing business\r\nas Encino Tower Partners commenced this action against Defendants Bruce Eliot\r\nFishman, M.D.F.I.C.S., Inc. and Bruce Eliot Fishman for (1) intentional\r\ninterference with contractual relations; (2) intentional interference with\r\nprospective economic advantage; (3) breach of lease; (4) breach of guaranty;\r\nand (5) ejectment.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On June 30, 2021, Defendant Bruce Eliot\r\nFishman filed the instant demurrer to Complaint.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On June 30, 2021, Defendants Bruce Eliot\r\nFishman, M.D.F.I.C.S., Inc. and Bruce Eliot Fishman filed the instant motion to\r\nstrike portions of the Complaint.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On August 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a\r\nfirst amended complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants for (1) intentional\r\ninterference with contractual relations; (2) intentional interference with\r\nprospective economic advantage; (3) breach of lease; and (4) ejectment.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

This is a demurrer brought by Defendant Bruce Eliot Fishman and motion to\r\nstrike brought by Defendants Bruce Eliot Fishman, M.D.F.I.C.S., Inc. and Bruce\r\nEliot Fishman as to the causes of action in the Complaint. (See\r\nDemurrer, pp. 1:26-2:20; see also Motion to Strike, pp. 1:25-2:11.) However, Plaintiff filed a first amended\r\ncomplaint on August 20, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The demurrer and motion to strike parts of the Complaint are DENIED as\r\nMOOT.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where WOODLAND HILLS INC. JOEY RESTAURANT is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer VIVOLI MICHAEL WARREN