Kevin Ward v. Southern California Gas Company

The Court finds that Plaintiff sufficiently established that the Settlement Agreements and the Modrzejewski Deposition and Exhibits are allegedly "not public record," that they are "proprietary in nature," that Plaintiff would be severely prejudiced if the documents are not sealed because the documents contain internal strategies that can be leveraged in subsequent settlement negotiations by developers to gain an unfair advantage, and that the request is narrowly tailored. (Carmichael Decl., P.P. 5-7, 15-16.)

Defendant, also, does not oppose the motion to seal specifically as to the Settlement Agreements. As to the Modrzejewski Deposition and Exhibits, specifically, while Counsel acknowledges that the testimony includes both confidential and non-confidential information, he states that the two "are inextricable intertwined" and thus "selective redaction [is] burdensome and/or impractical." (Id., P. 16.) In addition, counsel states that both parties, due to the intertwined nature, "agreed to designate the entire deposition" as confidential; Defendant does not dispute this assertion in its opposition. (Id.)

The Court, however, finds that Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently plead it had an overriding interest in sealing the Settlement Notices. Plaintiff's counsel states that the Settlement Notices are "a matter of public record and do not contain the full settlement agreements." (Id., P. 10.) The issue turns on the compilation of said Notices. The Court finds Plaintiff's argument that a compilation of said Notices would be prejudicial to be unpersuasive.

Accordingly, the motion is granted in part as to the Settlement Agreements and Modrzejewski Deposition and Exhibits and denied in part as to the Settlement Notices.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's motion to seal is granted in part as to the Settlement Agreements and Modrzejewski Deposition and Exhibits and denied in part as to the Settlement Notices. [1] The Court notes that Defendant filed an untimely opposition on September 3, 2026. The hearing for this motion is set for September 10, 2026; thus, Defendant's opposition was due by August 27, 2026.

Southern California Gas Company Thursday, September 10, 2026 TENTATIVE ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY'S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES [Res. No. -5018]

I. BACKGROUND

The first amended complaint alleges that Defendant, Southern California Gas Company (Defendant), negligently performed maintenance near Plaintiff's property in a manner that that caused soil erosion and flooding on Plaintiff's property. As alleged, Defendant was aware of the impact on Plaintiff's property from at least February 2023 and repeatedly claimed it intended to remedy the issue, but as of April 2026 no final design plan had been completed or confirmed. Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, trespass, private nuisance, public nuisance, inverse condemnation, and declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the use of an easement.

II. ARGUMENTS

A. Motion filed May 26, 2026. Plaintiff's complaint does not contain factual allegations demonstrating oppression, fraud, or malice, nor has he alleged facts sufficient to ascribe the necessary state of mind to a corporate defendant.

B. Opposition filed August 27, 2026. Defendant made "institutional decisions" that disregard Plaintiff's property rights in a manner that amounts to malice or oppression.

C. Reply filed Septmber 1, 2026. Plaintiff's opposition fails to identify facts in his pleading sufficient to demonstrate malice or oppression, and his "institutional decision" argument is unsupported by law.

III. LEGAL STANDARDS

"The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435 [notice of motion to strike whole or part of complaint], or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading." (Id. Sec. 436 (a).) Irrelevant matters include immaterial allegations that are not essential to the claim or those not pertinent to or supported by an otherwise sufficient claim. (Id., Sec. 431.10.) The court may also "[s]trike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court." (Id. Sec. 436 (b).)

A motion to strike is also the proper procedure to attack a purportedly improper remedy such as unjustified punitive damages. (Venice Town Council, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1547, 1561-1562.) A complaint including a request for punitive damages must also include allegations showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such an award. (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.)

IV. DISCUSSION

The motion is granted. Plaintiff's complaint fails to identify decision-makers within Defendant's management structure that had advance knowledge sufficient to act with malice, etc., and he fails to plead facts showing Defendant ratified an employee's torts after the fact. To the extent Plaintiff alleges Defendant has dragged its feet after the alleged nuisance was brought to Defendant's attention, Plaintiff fails to allege specific facts showing malice, etc. sufficient for punitive damages.

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendant's motion is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff is ordered to file an amended pleading within 30 days or to stand on his operative pleading subject to this order.

Case Number: 25STCV35554 Hearing Date: September 10, 2026 Dept: 414 25STCV35554 Michele Nasatir v. David Arakelyan, et al. Thursday, September 10, 2026 TENTATIVE ORDER SUSTAINING DEFENDANT OSCAR CASTILLO'S DEMURRER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [Res. No. -4388]

I. BACKGROUND

The first amended complaint alleges that Defendant David Arakelyan ("Arakelyan") fraudulently obtained Plaintiff's quarterly tax payment check for $118,600.00 sometime between September 1 to 10, 2024. Arakelyan then "washed" the check, altering the payee and making the check payable to "David Arakelian (Arakelyan) - Od Exotic Rental [sic] LLC." Arakelyan and Defendant Oscar Castillo ("Castillo") are members of Od Exotic Rentals LLC. Plaintiff alleges 4 causes of action for conversion, fraudulent misrepresentation, violation of Penal Code section 496, and negligence.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Where pleadings are defective, a party may raise the defect by demurrer. (Coyne v. Krempels (1950) 36 Cal.2d 257, 262.) A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleading; the Court accepts properly pleaded material facts as true, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (CCP, Sec. 430.30(a); Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 713.) The Court does not determine whether the plaintiff can