Naso v. Blackburn

# Case Name Tentative

take judicial notice of the existence and contents of court records, but not the truth of the matters stated therein].)

The case management conference is continued to November 23, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C28.

Defendant shall give notice of this ruling.

54. Naso v. Defendants David Blackburn and CFG Investments, Inc.’s Blackburn motion to strike portions of plaintiffs’ Complaint is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, 436 [authorizing motion].) 2025- 01519762 A motion to strike, like a demurrer, assumes plaintiffs’ allegations as true. (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255 [“In passing on the correctness of a ruling on a motion to strike, judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth”].)

The Complaint alleges sufficient facts showing defendants’ knowledge of mold, water intrusion, and other defects, including prior to plaintiffs’ residency, and intentional failure to disclose or repair same despite multiple requests, sufficient to support punitive damages allegations at the pleading stage. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1) [authorizing punitive damages for “malice,” i.e. “despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others”]; Complaint, ¶¶ 25, 35, 37, 50, 54, 58, 61, 64.)

As to attorney fees, there is no point in striking them, as there is no requirement they be pled at all. (Snatchko v. Westfield LLC (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 469, 497.) In any event, the Complaint adequately alleges a contractual basis for attorney fees. (Complaint, ¶ 73.)

Moving defendants shall file an Answer to the Complaint within 10 days.