Demurrer; Motion to Strike
The court finds sanctions are not warranted under the circumstances. Moreover, Plaintiff is self-represented and not apparently an attorney. As such, and as noted by Defendant, fees are not recoverable here as Plaintiff did not apparently incur any such fees. Further, there is apparently no authority for Plaintiff’s assertion that courts commonly grant sanctions at a “self-represented rate”.
In sum, Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are DENIED.
Defendant to give notice of all of the above.
11 Blanco vs. Motel 6 Demurrer (re Second Amended Complaint) Buena Park, CA - Motion to Strike Knotts Berry Farm (Case Management Conference) – Disneyland
1. Demurrer
The court SUSTAINS the entire unopposed general demurrer of Defendant BUENA PARK HOTEL, LLC (“Moving Defendant”) to the first, third and fourth causes of action in the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) filed by Plaintiffs SAMUEL BLANCO, JONATHAN BLANCO (a minor), and GRACE BLANCO (a minor) without leave to amend.
The SAC asserts seven causes of action against Moving Defendant: (1) battery, (2) negligence, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), (4) fraudulent concealment, (5) private nuisance, (6) public nuisance, and (7) breach of contract.
Moving Defendant argues the following:
• Plaintiffs fail to plead any intentional act by Defendant to support the first cause of action for battery. • Plaintiff fails to plead any intentional, outrageous act by Moving Defendant to support the third cause of action for IIED.
• The fourth cause of action for fraudulent concealment is not plead with the requisite specificity.
The court agrees that these causes of action remain deficient – i.e., they have the same deficiencies that were raised in prior demurrers to the same causes of action.
Plaintiffs did not file any opposing papers to the demurrer or to the motion to strike and failed to address any of the arguments that Moving Defendant makes, apparently conceding the issues. (See, e.g., DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 562, 566 [“By failing to argue the contrary, plaintiffs concede this issue”]; Westside Center Associates v. Safeway Stores 23, Inc. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 507, 529 [“failure to address the threshold question ... effectively concedes that issue and renders its remaining arguments moot”];
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Accordingly, the court sustains the demurrer to the first, third, and fourth causes of action, without leave to amend.
Moving Defendant to give notice.
2. Motion to Strike
The court GRANTS the entire motion to strike of Defendant BUENA PARK HOTEL, LLC (“Moving Defendant) to certain portions of the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) filed by Plaintiffs SAMUEL BLANCO, JONATHAN BLANCO (a minor), and GRACE BLANCO (a minor) without leave to amend.
Moving Defendant moves to strike various allegations relating to punitive damages in paragraphs 29, 32, 35, 38, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 62, 64, 65, 67, 76, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 92, 96, 98, 99, 103, 105, 108, 110, 114, 115, 117, and Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages.
Moving Defendant argues that punitive damages are not available for general negligence and/or breach of contract causes of action. Moving Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s allegations are not sufficient to rise to the level of malice, oppression, or fraud that are necessary to allege punitive damages.
The court agrees that the allegations are insufficient to support a punitive damages request.
The unopposed motion to strike is therefore GRANTED in its entirety.
Plaintiff has had multiple opportunities to amend but failed to cure the deficiencies. Plaintiff failed to file opposing papers or otherwise show that any further amendment would result in stating viable causes of action for battery, IIED, or fraud against Moving Defendant. The court therefore denies leave to amend.
Moving Defendant SHALL answer the remaining portions of the SAC within ten court days.
Moving Defendant to give notice.
3. CMC
The court has reviewed the case file, including case management statements filed by both sides, and hereby issues this case management order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.722(d) and 3.728.) Although the action is not yet at-issue, it should soon be. As such, the court will set a trial date. The court further notes that Plaintiff failed to file a new and timely case management statement despite the court’s order for such. (See 6/26/26 Minute Order.)
The court sets a 4-6 day jury trial for Monday, February 14, 2028, at 8:45 am in Dept. W8. All parties are ordered to comply with the Department’s Policies & Procedures and Trial Standing Orders, which are available on the court’s public website (www.occourts.org) and inside the department.
Any outstanding jury fees are due within 10 court days of this order or will be deemed waived. (See Civ. Proc. Code, § 631.)
Plaintiff to give notice.
12 Krishnamoorthy vs. Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication The Irvine Company, LLC The court CONTINUES Defendants THE IRVINE COMPANY LLC, IRVINE PARK WEST APARTMENTS LLC, and IRVINE MANAGEMENT COMPANY’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication to September 4, 2026, at 9:30 am in Dept. W8.
In support of their motion, Defendants submit surveillance footage of the incident as Exhibit I to the Declaration of James C. Truxaw (ROA 110) and rely on that footage in support of Defendant’s Separate Statement Nos. 14-19. Exhibit I provides only a link to a DropBox folder that the court is unable to access.
Similarly, the Dropbox link to the surveillance footage provided by Plaintiffs in their opposition (ROA 183) is also inaccessible to the court.
The parties SHALL have five days from this ruling to lodge the surveillance footage referenced in their respective filings on a thumb/flash drive.
No further briefing permitted.
Defendants are ordered to give notice.
20 Mallett vs. City of Specially set @ 1:30 pm: Santa Ana Motion for Trial Preference Pitchess Motion
17