Demurrer; Motion to Strike
judgment creditor’s name was changed in 2019, the entity has continued on in good standing. (ROA 119, Allay Decl. ¶ 6, Exs. 4 and 5.) The extent to which that name change affects either the underlying judgment, or the pleadings filed in this action under the Alai name, is beyond the scope of this Motion.
Alai’s request for sanctions, presented in the Opposition, is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice (ROA 76) is GRANTED as to the existence of the records presented as Exhibits 1 and 9 under Ev. Code sections 452(c) and (d). (Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 256, 264.) The Request is otherwise DENIED, as the relevance of those documents here is not shown. (Superior Court v. County of Mendocino (1996) 13 Cal.4th 45, 59, fn. 7.)
Plaintiff shall give notice.
308 Anderson vs. Before the Court is a Demurrer and Motion to Specialty Strike filed by defendant SVS Parking Company, Restaurants LLC (SVS) as to Plaintiff’s First Amended Corporation Complaint (FAC).
As set forth herein, the Demurrer is OVERRULED and the Motion to Strike is GRANTED.
Demurrer
1st – 3rd Causes of Action: Assault, Battery, Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress
SVS demurs to the 1st -3rd causes of action on the grounds that insufficient facts have been pled establishing vicarious liability via respondeat superior. These three causes of action are
sufficiently pled. (Field v. Sanders (1947) 29 Cal.2d 834, 839 [“the inquiry is not whether the act itself was authorized but whether it was committed in the course of a series of acts of the agent that were authorized by the principal.”].)
4th Cause of Action - Negligent Supervision, Hiring And Retention: This cause of action is sufficiently pled. (Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2026) CACI No. 426 [elements].)
Motion to Strike
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?”
SVS moves to strike two parts of the complaint
Punitive Damages: Page 7, Paragraph No. 32 in its entirety - “Punitive Damages may be awarded if it is found that the Defendant’s conduct that harmed the Plaintiff was particularly egregious, malicious, oppressive or in reckless disregard of the Plaintiff’s rights.”
“It is well settled that while an employer may be held liable for an employee’s tort under the doctrine of Respondeat superior, he is not responsible for punitive damages where he neither directed nor ratified the act.” (Ebaugh v. Rabkin (1972) 22 Cal. App. 3d 891, 895.) “California has traditionally allowed punitive damages to be assessed against an employer (or principal) for the acts of an employee (or agent) only where the circumstances indicate that the employer himself was guilty of fraud, oppression, or malice.” (Coll. Hosp. Inc. v. Superior Ct. (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 704, 723.) In order to survive a motion to strike punitive damages, the Plaintiff must plead ultimate facts to show it is entitled to such relief. (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166.)
Here, there are no ultimate facts pled as to misconduct by SVS that would warrant punitive
damages under Civil Code §3294. Accordingly, the motion to strike punitive damages is GRANTED without prejudice to plaintiff making a subsequent motion for leave to amend.
Para 11 in prayer – Attorney’s Fees: There is no basis for attorney’s fees alleged in the FAC. (Code of Civil Procedure §1021.) Plaintiff did not oppose the motion to strike attorney’s fees, thus conceding the argument. (DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Sup. Ct. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 562, 566 [“By failing to argue the contrary, plaintiffs concede this issue”].) Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as to attorney’s fees.
The Motion to Strike is GRANTED, without prejudice to the plaintiff later seeking leave to amend to assert new specific facts showing SVS was guilty of fraud, oppression or malice.
SVS is ORDERED to file its answer to the FAC by 6/18/26.
On the Court’s own motion, the Case Management Conference is CONTINUED to July 27, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. C24 to be heard concurrently with the Motion to Set Aside Default filed by Mr. Post. Mr. Post and Plaintiff are directed to meet and confer regarding resolution of the issues raised in the Motion to Set Aside Default and to advise the Court not later than 14 days before the hearing if the motion needs to remain on calendar.
SVS shall give notice to all parties, including Mr. Post.
309 Arteaga vs. Counsel Melissa G. Fulgencio, John Kauffman and Circle City Uplift Law, PC’s motion to be relieved as counsel of Liquidators record for defendants Circle City Liquidators, LLC LLC and Two Brothers Wholesale, LLC is GRANTED.