NAACP GREATER SACRAMENTO BRANCH vs WILLIAMS, et al.

25CV020632: NAACP GREATER SACRAMENTO BRANCH vs WILLIAMS, et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

Defendants Lorraine Moore (“Moore”) and Elite Professional, Inc.’s (“Elite”) (collectively, “Defendants”) motion to strike portions of Plaintiff NAACP Greater Sacramento Branch’s (“Plaintiff” or “NAACP”) complaint is ruled upon as follows.

Overview

Plaintiff alleges that Moore served as its Treasurer in or about 2021 and 2023. Moore served as the CEO, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of Elite from 2021 to 2023. Plaintiff alleges that during the COVID-19 pandemic, Moore and other individual defendants obtained grants from the County of Sacramento (the “County”) for the goal of administering a program that delivered meals to people who were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiff alleges that Moore and others proceeded to direct hundreds of thousands of dollars to themselves by using their corporate entities as cover and serving as “independent contractors” that were supposed to fulfill administrative tasks associated with the program. (Complaint, ¶ 14.)

Plaintiff alleges that the use of the affiliated subcontractors was a violation of the conflict-of-interest provision in the contracts signed with the County, and that Moore and the others failed to disclose that a number of the subcontractors were affiliated with them. (Complaint, ¶¶ 78-79.)

Plaintiff alleges that Moore and others acted in their own self-interest from the start of the Dine- In 2 program. Plaintiff alleges that Moore retained Elite to perform administrative services such as program coordination, developing a project charter and communicating with vendors. (Complaint, ¶ 56.)

Plaintiff alleges that it later discovered the alleged misconduct and investigated. Plaintiff learned that Moore received more than $100,000 through Elite. Plaintiff alleges that Moore and Elite submitted fraudulent invoices, and that the defendants “may have conspired to falsify or fabricate invoices through entities affiliated with them using similar templates for work that they did not perform.” (Complaint, ¶ 82.) For example, Plaintiff alleges that:

84. Defendant 1 Solution (affiliated with [defendant] Williams) submitted invoices that contained parallel typography, same header and footer layout, and other similar patterns as invoices submitted by Defendant Elite Professional (affiliated with Moore).

85. Defendants Elite Professional and 1 Solution issued invoices that were nearly identical (except for dates, names of the contractors, and invoice numbers), charging $3,840 for four items of “Admin/Training” work, each containing identical descriptions and numbers of hours worked.

(Complaint, ¶¶ 84-85.)

25CV020632: NAACP GREATER SACRAMENTO BRANCH vs WILLIAMS, et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 16C

Plaintiff further alleges that the investigation identified missing invoices for hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to vendors. (Complaint, ¶ 93.)

The County has demanded that Plaintiff repay $948,037 in “disallowed costs” and $1,728,769 in costs that do not have supporting documentation. (Complaint, ¶ 113.)

As against Defendants, the complaint asserts causes of action for: (1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Constructive Fraud, (2) Accounting, and (3) Fraud by Misrepresentation.

Defendants move to strike[1]:

1. The request for punitive damages (Prayer, ¶ 3) 2. The request for attorneys’ fees (Prayer, ¶ 5); and 3. Inflammatory references to “embezzlement,” “conversion,” and “stolen funds” including those in Paragraphs 13, 65, 70, 80-92, 122, and 130.

(Motion, 13:3-7.)

Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 436, the court may “[s]trike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading” as well as “all or part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subds. (a) and (b).) The grounds for a motion to strike must appear on the face of the pleading under attack, or from matter which the court may judicially notice. (Code Civ. Proc., §437; CPF Agency Corp. v. R&S Towing Service (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1014, 1032.)

Motions to strike are disfavored. Courts considering such motions must presume the allegations contained therein are true and must consider those allegations in context. (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.) The use of the motion to strike should be cautious and sparing. It should not be a procedural “line-item veto” for the civil defendant. (PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1683.) An allegation that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense is an immaterial allegation that is subject to be stricken as irrelevant matter. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 431.10(b)(1), (c), 436(a).)

Punitive Damages

Given that the Court has overruled Defendants’ concurrent demurrer to allegations regarding fraud, the motion to strike is DROPPED as moot.

Attorneys’ Fees

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV020632: NAACP GREATER SACRAMENTO BRANCH vs WILLIAMS, et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 16C

Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to allege a statute, contract, or equitable basis to support attorneys’ fees.

Plaintiff contends in opposition that Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 applies here because:

[the case] concerns the alleged diversion of nearly $2.75 million in county- administered COVID-19 relief funds appropriated under the American Rescue Plan Act to feed food-insecure seniors and homeless individuals during the pandemic. A lawsuit seeking to recover those funds and establish accountability for their diversion is not an internal matter—it is exactly the type of enforcement of an important public right that CCP §1021.5 was enacted to support.

(Opposition, 8:23-27.)

“There is no requirement that the intent to seek attorney fees under section 1021.5 must be pleaded in the underlying action. [Citation.] Such fees are not part of the underlying cause of action, but are incidents to the cause and are properly awarded after entry of a judgment. ” (Washburn v. City of Berkeley (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 578, 583.) Citing this excerpt, the Third District Court of Appeal concluded that it was an error for a trial court to strike a plaintiff’s prayer for attorney fees under section 1021.5 based on a failure to adequately plead their basis. (Snatchko v.

Westfield LLC (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 469, 497.) Here, Defendants contend that Plaintiff has failed to allege facts satisfying Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 because the complaint “alleges a dispute over the administration of a specific program involving a discrete set of parties—not the enforcement of a broad public right.” (Reply, 8:16-19.) In other words, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not adequately pled a basis for attorney’s fees under section 1021.5. Under Washburn and Snatchko, this is not a proper basis for a motion to strike.

Additionally, the Court notes that the nature of attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 inherently precludes adjudication at the pleading stage, since the elements are fact-intensive and are based on the outcome of the litigation. For example, “[i]n determining the financial burden on litigants, courts have quite logically focused not only on the costs of the litigation but also on any offsetting financial benefits that the litigation yields or reasonably could have been expected to yield.” (Conservatorship of Whitley (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1206, 1215.)

This contemplates an assessment after the underlying case has been completed.

Accordingly, the motion to strike is DENIED.

References to “embezzlement,” “conversion,” and “stolen funds”

As explained above, the use of the motion to strike should not be a procedural “line-item veto” for the civil defendant. (PH II, Inc., supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at 1683.) Defendants’ motion to strike

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV020632: NAACP GREATER SACRAMENTO BRANCH vs WILLIAMS, et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 16C

the above terms is simply a “line-item veto” of certain terms.

Accordingly, the motion to strike is DENIED. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Department 16C Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-1475 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below.

If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court. Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3087 7014. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV020632: NAACP GREATER SACRAMENTO BRANCH vs WILLIAMS, et al. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 16C

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

[1] Plaintiff’s notice of motion fails to comply with CRC Rule 3.1322(a) which requires that “[a]

notice of motion to strike a portion of a pleading must quote in full the portions sought to be stricken except where the motion is to strike an entire paragraph, cause of action, count, or defense. Specifications in a notice must be numbered consecutively.”