Kelson vs. Marriott International, Inc.

rather than to compensate the plaintiff. In this, it is akin to punitive damages.”].)

A plaintiff may not recover both civil penalties and punitive damages “based upon substantially the same conduct.” (Troensegaard v. Silvercrest Industries, Inc. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 218, 226 [striking punitive damages award where plaintiff also recovered civil penalties under Civil Code section 1794 because “in their effect both constituted punitive damages].) It seems unlikely that the Legislature intended for a plaintiff to be able to recover an unspecified amount of punitive damages under subsection (a), when it expressly provided for civil penalties not to “exceed two times the amount of actual damages,” under subsection (c).

Thus, the Motion is granted with leave so Plaintiff can allege the correct facts required for punitive damages against a corporate entity and to clarify that these damages are only sought in the fraud claim.

Defendant is ordered to serve notice.

Case Management Conference

Continued to 11-2-2026 at 9:00 a.m.

6 Kelson vs. Motion for an Order to Show Cause Regarding Dismissal Pursuant to Marriott CCP 583.410 International, Court will hear argument. Inc.

7 Long Affair Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form/Special Carpet and Interrogatories and Production Rug, Inc. vs. Morgan Before the Court is Cross-Defendant Long Affair Carpet and Rug, Inc. dba LA Carpet Motins to compel further responses and documents from Defendant and Cross-Complainant Lauren Morgan as to Special