J.C. v. Marriott International, Inc.

# Case Name Tentative

50. Donovan v. Attorneys Gina M. Austin/Tamara Rozmus of Austin Legal Taft Group’s motion to be relieved as counsel of record for defendant Robert Taft is DENIED without prejudice. 2021- 01225158 An attorney seeking to be relieved must use Judicial Council forms when seeking court approval for withdrawal. California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362 specifically require that “[t]he motion to be relieved as counsel must be accompanied by a declaration on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel--Civil (form MC-052).” Ca. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362.

Although the moving attorneys may have good cause for the requested relief, the Mandatory Judicial Council form was not utilized. As such, the court has no choice but to deny the motion without prejudice.

Attorney Gina Austin shall give notice of this ruling.

51. Valvano v. The motion of attorney Victoria E. Edwards to be relieved as Hurtado counsel of record for defendant Jeffrey B. Moreno is DENIED without prejudice. 2025- 01515962 The motion and declaration are not signed by attorney Edwards. As a result, there is no evidence in support of the motion.

In the event counsel seeks to refile this motion, counsel should also expressly address the status of the law firm of Adams & Reese, LLP and any other attorneys from that firm, in the event they also seek to be relieved as counsel.

Moving attorney shall give notice of this ruling.

52. J.C. v. Defendant Marriott International, Inc. erroneously sued and Marriott served as Anaheim Marriott Hotel’s demurrer to the Complaint International is OVERRULED. A motion to strike (not a demurrer), is the, Inc. proper vehicle to challenge an allegedly improper remedy. (Kong v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency 2025- (2002) 108 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1047 [“a demurrer cannot 01530620 rightfully be sustained ... to a particular type of damage or remedy”]; PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1682 [“demurrer does not lie to a portion of a cause of action”].)

Defendant’s motion to strike punitive damages allegations is GRANTED, with leave to amend. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 435, 436 [authorizing motion]; Civ. Code., § 3294 [authorizing

# Case Name Tentative

punitive damages]; Today's IV, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1137, 1193 [specific factual allegations required for punitive damages].)

The Complaint does not allege sufficient facts, as opposed to conclusions, showing “despicable” conduct (Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1210), or entity liability (Civ. Code., § 3294, subd. (b); Cruz v. HomeBase (2000) 83 Cal. App. 4th 160, 167.) The Complaint alleges that defendants knew the firepit was defective, and did not heed warning labels on the bioethanol fuel, but there are no facts alleged, as opposed to conclusions, showing that defendants, and/or any officer, director, or managing agent, knew or should have known of the potentially dangerous or extreme consequences of using bioethanol fuel outside of a ventless fireplace. (Complaint, ¶¶ 4-6, 28, 31, 41-44.) Accordingly, the court orders the following allegations stricken:

1. Page 1, lines 7-9, which reads: “...the defendants engaged in conduct with a conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiff and intended to cause harm.”

2. Page 6, line 14-15, which reads: “...its employees acted in conscious and reckless disregard for guest safety...”

3. Page 7, line 13, which reads: “Defendants acted in conscious disregard of the safety of each Plaintiff...”

4. Pages 8-9, Allegations Supporting Punitive Damages, in its entirety; 5. Page 10, Prayer for Relief number three in its entirety, which reads: “For punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294.”

Plaintiffs are granted 15 days’ leave to amend.

The case management conference is continued to November 2, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C28.

The order to show cause is discharged.

Moving party shall give notice of this ruling.

53. Logan & Defendants Stacie Andrella and Kathleen Hollins’ demurrer to Logan Plaintiff Logan & Logan Construction, Inc.’s First Amended Construction Complaint (“FAC”) is SUSTAINED as to the Fourth Cause of, Inc. v. Action for Fraud – False Promise as to Defendant Kathleen RRCZ Hollins only. The demurrer is otherwise OVERRULED. Investments Within 10 days of this ruling, Plaintiff may file a Second LLC Amended Complaint to address the deficiency in the Fourth Cause of Action, as it pertains to Defendant Hollins. If a