Mifflin v. Raskin

108 Mifflin v. Raskin, 2025- MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIMS 01517521 – GRANTED WITH 20 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND

Defendants Joseph Ryan Raskin and Raskin Built, LLC move to strike plaintiffs Justin Mifflin and Camille Birrer’s prayer for punitive damages in Paragraph 14., subdivision a.(2) of their complaint. (ROA 16)

Motion to Strike is GRANTED with 20 days leave to amend. (Code Civ. Proc., §435; Civ. Code, § 3294.)

Here, there are no detailed facts pled within the complaint at all, let alone facts supporting an intentional tort cause of action or a claim for punitive damages.

In the Opposition, Plaintiffs make arguments which are outside the four corners of the Complaint, which is not permissible in connection with a motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437; CPF Agency Corp. v. R&S Towing Service (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1014, 1032 [grounds for motion to strike must appear on the face of the pleading under attack, or from matter which the court may judicially notice].) The Declaration of Attorney Justin Trad, and exhibits attached thereto were not considered.

Defendant to give notice.

109 Miramar Food Hall DEFAULT PROVE-UP HEARING Real Estate LLC v Big Picture Concepts Design LLC, 2023- 01366805

110 Oakland JMO, LLC. vs. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ Hybrid Battery Place, ADJUDICATION Inc., 2022-01271085 Defendant State Farm General Insurance Company (“Defendant”) filed a motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff Hybrid Battery Inc.’s cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and claim for punitive damages.