Kang Kim vs Blue Hill Casualty Insurance Company

allege any cognizable negligence claim against Defendant Robbins. Moreover, the action is barred by the two-year statute of limitations even assuming delayed discovery. Based on the foregoing, the demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Fifth Cause of Action Defendant demurs to the fifth cause of action for quiet title on the grounds the claim is barred by the statute of limitations. The applicable statute of limitations for actions to quiet title depend on the underlying theory of relief. (See Salazar v. Thomas (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 467, 476.) Generally, the time limit for a quiet title action is the four-year limitations period for cancellation of an instrument or the three-year limitations period for fraud. (See id.) The limitations period begins to run when the plaintiff is not in exclusive and undisputed possession of the property. (See id. at 477-78.)?[M]ere notice of an adverse claim is not enough to commence the owner’s statute of limitations.” (Id.) Because the claims arise out of the alleged fraud, the three-year statute of limitations applies. Even considering Plaintiffs’ alleged delayed discovery in May of 2021, the court finds the claim is time barred as it is primarily an action for fraud. Based on the foregoing, the demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Sixth Cause of Action Defendant Robbins demurs to the sixth cause of action for unjust enrichment/restitution on the grounds there is “no cause of action in California for unjust enrichment,” (City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders (2022) 83 Cal. App. 5th 458, 477), and “restitution is a remedy and not a freestanding cause of action,” (Reid v. City of San Diego (2018) 24 Cal. App. 5th 343, 362). Even if there was such a cause of action, it would be barred by the statute of limitations. The court agrees there is no cause of action for unjust enrichment. (See e.g. McBride v. Boughton (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 379, 387 [“Unjust enrichment is not a cause of action, however, or even a remedy, but rather a general principle, underlying various legal doctrines and remedies .... [Citation.] It is synonymous with restitution.”].) Similarly, restitution functions as a remedy, not cause of action. Based on the foregoing, the demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Motion to Strike Defendant Robbins seeks to strike Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages. A motion to strike punitive damages allegations may lie where the facts alleged do not rise to the level of “malice, fraud or oppression’ required to support a punitive damages award. (Turman v. Turning Point of Central Calif., Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.) As noted above, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a cause of action against Defendant Robbins for Elder Abuse. Those allegations are sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages based on malicious, fraudulent or oppressive conduct.

BLUE HILL CASUAL TY INSURANCE COMPANY MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY Date of Hearing: May 18, 2026 Trial Date: None set Department: 529 Case No.: 26STCV05895 Moving Party: Petitioner Kang Hyun Kim Responding Party: Respondent Blue Hill Specialty Insurance Company Meet and Confer: Yes. Mouradyan Decl.

BACKGROUND On February 20, 2026, Petitioner Kang Kim filed a Petition to Assign Case Number for Purpose of Discovery Motions against Blue Hill Casualty Insurance Company.

[Tentative] Ruling Petitioner’ s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One is DENIED.

DISCUSSION Petitioner Kang Hyun Kim moves this court for an order compelling Respondent Blue Hill Specialty Insurance Company to provide further verified response without objection to Special Interrogatory (Set One) Nos. 6, 7, 83? 164 and 180? 184 within 20 days. Petitioner makes the motion on the grounds that Respondent has failed to provide complete and code compliant responses to the Special Interrogatories and these interrogatories are relevant to the subject matter of this action. Petitioner also seeks an order from this court imposing monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,635.00 to be imposed jointly and severally against Respondent and their counsel of record, McNeil Tropp & Braun LLP.

A motion to compel further responses to form or specially prepared interrogatories may be brought if the responses contain: (1) answers that are evasive or incomplete; (2) an unwarranted or insufficiently specific exercise of an option to produce documents in lieu of a substantive response; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (CCP § 2030.300(a).)

Petitioner argues Respondent’s responses to Special Interrogatories 6, 7, 83 through 164, and 180 through 184 fail to provide the sought after information. For example, Respondent fails to set forth who contributed to the subject incident, has not provided any substantive explanation for their position regarding the need for future medical care, or even respond to straightforward and clear questions as required by the Insurance Code.

In opposition, Respondent first argues the motion contains false information. Respondent contends there is no interrogatory asking Respondent to identify all persons who Responding Party contends contributed to the subject incident. Moreover, the memorandum fails to identify the factual and legal reasoning necessary to grant this motion and the separate statement is defective as there is no separate, single argument for each of the responses. Lastly, Respondent argues the interrogatories at issue do not require further response because the responses are code compliant.

The court finds this motion is not well taken. Although the court disagrees with the defendant’s procedural and technical objections to the presentation of the motion, the court agrees with the substance of the opposition. Many of the requests either call for a legal conclusion or assume facts not in evidence. For the most part they are contention interrogatories that are improperly formulated. As presented, they are nearly incomprehensible, assume facts not in evidence, or call for speculation. If the question is formulated, “If you contend that plaintiff suffered no emotional distress as a result of this incident, state all facts which support this contention,” the question might require a response. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’ s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One is DENIED.

Sanction Petitioner seeks $1,575.00 in monetary sanctions. Respondent also seeks sanctions against Petitioner and his counsel of record in the amount of $1,635.00. The court DENIES both requests for sanctions, as it finds both parties lack substantial justification as to why they did not resolve these issues through the meet and confer process.

Home -->)" -->