AHMAD ALI MOHYEE v. DOUGLAS C. QUAN, ET AL

Plaintiff’s motion for pretrial discovery of financial information is denied.

Allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff Ahmad Moyhee’s (“Plaintiff”) Third Amended Complaint alleges a claim for Fraud in the Inducement and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress as well as a claim for punitive damages. Plaintiff now moves for discovery of Defendants’ financial information.

Standard

Civil Code Section 3294, which governs awards of punitive damages, provides in part:

(a) In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant. *** (c) As used in this section, the following definitions shall apply: (1) “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.

(2) “Oppression” means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights. (3) “Fraud” means 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 . . . .

“Civil Code section 3294 authorizes an award of punitive damages only where it is shown by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” (Kerr v. Rose (1990) 216 Cal.App.3d 1551, 1565, superseded by statute on other grounds in Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 583.) The clear and convincing standard requires “a finding of high probability,” and evidence “so clear as to leave no substantial doubt,” and “sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind.” (Mock v. Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. Co. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 306, 332 [citations and internal quotations omitted].)

Pursuant to Civil Code Section 3295(c), a plaintiff may not conduct pretrial discovery on the profits and financial condition of a defendant unless permitted by the court upon a showing that there is a substantial probability the plaintiff will prevail on his claim pursuant to Section 3294. The phrase “substantial probability” has been interpreted as meaning “very likely” or a “strong likelihood”.” (Jabro v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 754, 758.)

Evidentiary Record

Plaintiff’s Showing

Plaintiff’s moving papers sets forth a statement of facts which are based on the complaint and Plaintiff’s own declaration. Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff’s declaration are sustained to the extent that Plaintiff has testified as to Defendants’ intent, knowledge or motivations. They are sustained as to claims that seek to characterize Defendant’s conduct, reach legal conclusions or offer lay opinions as to whether Defendants acted with “conscious disregard” or engaged in actions which were “pretextual.”

As to the remainder of the showing, Plaintiff states that the lease in question contained a preprinted clause providing that the tenancy would convert to month-to-month if Defendants continued to accept rent after the fixed term expired, but that Defendants assured Plaintiff that they would honor the conversion so long as he paid rent on time, maintained the property and observed the HOA rules. Plaintiff further asserted that after the lease converted, Defendants demanded that Plaintiff sign a new fixed-term lease with restrictive terms which would have cost more than $30,000 if Plaintiff needed to relocate to care for his mother.

Plaintiff provided an additional declaration in conjunction with his Reply brief along with additional evidence. Defendants lodge several objections, including that the court should not consider new evidence in reply papers. “The general rule of motion practice [...] is that new

evidence is not permitted with reply papers.” (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537.)

But even if the court were to consider the additional evidence attached to Plaintiff’s reply declaration, it is insufficient demonstrate the heightened showing of very likely to prevail on a showing of malice or fraud. Nothing in the attached deposition transcript of discovery responses show that it is very likely that Defendants intended to defraud Plaintiff or that their actions were malicious.

Plaintiff has argued that this Court’s prior order overruling Defendants’ demurrer shows a high likelihood of prevailing on a punitive damages claim because the Court found that Plaintiff had adequately pled causes of action and “reasonable minds could differ” as to whether Defendants’ conduct was vile, base, or contemptible.” Allowing claims to proceed in a complaint cannot be a substitute for proof of evidence such that a court can determine a high likelihood of success of prevailing on these claims.

At this juncture, Plaintiff’s motion fails to meet the heightened standard for pre-trial financial discovery, and it is denied.

All parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(B) to contest the tentative decision. Parties who request oral argument are required to appear in person or remotely by ZOOM. Regardless of whether a party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the prevailing party shall prepare an order consistent with the announced ruling as required by Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.11.

The Zoom appearance information for May, 2026 is as follows: https://marin-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615487764?pwd=Ob4B5J7LLKcpnkxzJjjEOSHNzEGafG.1

Meeting ID: 161 548 7764 Passcode: 502070

If you are unable to join by video, you may join by telephone by calling (669) 254-5252 and using the above-provided passcode. Zoom appearance information may also be found on the Court’s website: https://www.marin.courts.ca.gov