LE vs CIM GROUP, L.P., et al.

25CV136854: LE vs CIM GROUP, L.P., et al. 07/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; filed by CIM Group, L.P. (Defendant) + CRS# 522655090349 in Department 517

Tentative Ruling - 07/10/2026 Keith Fong

The Motion to Strike (not initial pleading) Defendants' Notice of Motion And Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by Jack London Square Existing (Oakland) Owner, LLC, CIM Group, L.P. on 03/06/2026 is Denied.

Defendants CIM Group, L.P. and Jack London Square Existing (Oakland) Owner, LLC’s Motion to Strike is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Dang Bich Thuy Le (“Plaintiff”) brings the instant action against Defendants CIM Group L.P. (“CIM”) and Jack London Square Existing Owner, LLP. (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges that on December 5, 2024, she was violently assaulted by an unauthorized intruder hiding in a women’s restroom at 70 Washington Street, Oakland, while she was working for tenant Promaxo, Inc. at the building. (Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) ¶ 15.)

The operative Second Amended Complaint filed on February 2, 2026, alleges premises liability and negligence. The SAC alleges that Defendants owned/controlled the premises; Defendants are aware that the building is located in a high crime area with repeated unauthorized entries in 2023-2024; tenants repeatedly encountered unauthorized persons in the building, including in restrooms and offices; Defendants promised to install a Butterfly MX access system and other controls, but failed to implement such measures prior to the incident; no functioning controlledaccess locks, elevator restrictions, security personnel, cameras, or alarms prevented unauthorized entry. (SAC ¶¶ 8-17.)

Plaintiff alleges, based upon information and belief, that the acts and/or omissions were committed with advance knowledge and conscious disregard of, and were authorized, approved, directed, and/or ratified by, Defendants’ officers, directors, and/or managing agents. (SAC ¶ 29.) Plaintiff further alleges that the officers, directors, and/or managing agents had responsibility and decision-making authority over building operations, life-safety and security policies, vendor selection, budgeting, and approval and implementation of security measures, and that they had actual knowledge of the intrusions in the building, but permitted the continued failure to implement security measures. (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that her injuries were a proximate and direct result from Defendants’ conscious disregard of tenant safety, and such conduct constitutes despicable conduct with a willful and conscious disregard as to the probable dangerous consequences to Plaintiff and others. (SAC ¶¶ 30-31.) 25CV136854: LE vs CIM GROUP, L.P., et al. 07/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; filed by CIM Group, L.P. (Defendant) + CRS# 522655090349 in Department 517 On January 27, 2026, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to strike with leave to amend for Plaintiff to allege ultimate facts to establish fraud, malice, or oppression to support Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294.

Defendants move to strike the portions of the SAC – specifically, Paragraphs 29 through 32 and part of Plaintiff’s Prayer for Relief – for failure to allege specific factual allegations of malice, fraud, or oppression by Defendants pursuant to Civil Code § 3294.

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to strike may be brought to challenge “irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading” or to strike “all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subds. (a), (b).) The grounds for the motion must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from matters of which the court may take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437, subd. (a).)

In ruling on a motion to strike, the court reads the pleading as a whole, all parts in their context, and assumes the truth of the properly pleaded allegations. In ruling on a motion to strike, the court reads the pleading as a whole, all parts in their context, and assuming the truth of all wellpleaded allegations. (See Turman v. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.) The allegations are liberally construed with a view to attaining substantial justice among the parties. (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.)

To survive a motion to strike a claim for punitive damages, a plaintiff must plead ultimate facts showing an entitlement to such relief. (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.) Punitive damages may be awarded where “the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) A complaint that describes conduct from which a conscious disregard for parties’ rights may be inferred is sufficient to state a cause of action for punitive damages. (SKF Farms v. Sup. Ct. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 907.) However, “conclusory allegations, devoid of any factual assertions, are insufficient to support a conclusion that parties acted with oppression, fraud, or malice.” (Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1042.)

DISCUSSION

Defendants contend that the SAC fails to allege facts to support the conclusory allegation that Defendants acted with malice, oppression, and/or fraud. Defendants further contend that Plaintiff’s allegations, taken as true, only amount to negligence, which cannot support a request for punitive damages. Defendants further argue that Plaintiff has not met the pleading requirements under Civil Code § 3294(b) because there is no alleged wrongful conduct by an officer, director, or managing agent of Defendants.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV136854: LE vs CIM GROUP, L.P., et al. 07/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; filed by CIM Group, L.P. (Defendant) + CRS# 522655090349 in Department 517 Plaintiff contends that the SAC adequately alleges that Defendants had notice of unauthorized intrusions into the building; assured that specific access-control and security measures would be implemented; tenants such as Plaintiff relied on those assurances and held a false sense of security; and Defendants’ continued failure to implement adequate measures despite a known and foreseeable risk of violent harm. Plaintiff argues that these allegations support reasonable inferences of a conscious disregard for occupant safety adequate to support a request for punitive damages.

Evil motive is a central element of malice that may support punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294, and where the injury is not deliberately inflicted, the plaintiff must allege that the defendant acted with conscious disregard of the plaintiff’s safety. (O’Hara v. Western Seven Trees Corp. (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 798, 806.) Here, the SAC alleges that Defendants’ officers, directors, and/or managing agents knew of a history of intruders in the building; had promised to undertake security measures; yet failed to implement such measures prior to the incident. (SAC ¶¶ 28-29.)

For the purpose of a demurrer, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged Defendants’ authorization of such wrongful acts and/or omissions. (O’Hara at p. 806.) In the case of a landlord, a general duty of maintenance owned to tenant and patrons includes a duty to take reasonable steps to secure common areas against foreseeable criminal acts of third parties likely to occur in the absence of such precautionary measures. (Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, 674.)

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to strike is DENIED.

Defendants shall file an Answer to the SAC no later than 10 days of the date of this order. (C.R.C. Rule 3.1320(g).)

HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING?

THROUGH ECOURT

Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 p.m. (but by Noon if possible) at least one (1) court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select "Search" 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select "Click to Contest this Ruling"

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV136854: LE vs CIM GROUP, L.P., et al. 07/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; filed by CIM Group, L.P. (Defendant) + CRS# 522655090349 in Department 517 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select "Proceed"

BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4pm (but by Noon if possible) at least one (1) court day before the scheduled hearing.

BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.

ZOOM LOG-IN INFORMATION FOR DEPARTMENT 517 IS BELOW.

Join ZoomGov Meeting https://www.zoomgov.com/j/16181989812

Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812 One tap mobile +16692545252,,16181989812# US (San Jose) 16692161590,,16181989812# US +(San Jose)

Dial by your location +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose) +1 669 216 1590 US (San Jose) +1 551 285 1373 US +1 646 828 7666 US (New York) 833 568 8864 US Toll-free Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812 Find your local number: https://www.zoomgov.com/u/ad6x1ZH23d

Join by SIP 16181989812@sip.zoomgov.com

Join by H.323 161.199.138.10 (US West) 161.199.136.10 (US East) Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812