18-CIV-01355 COLLEEN KAY CUDD, ET AL. VS. TIFFANY LI, ET AL.
COLLEEN KAY CUDD TIFFANY LI
ALISON E. CORDOVA CAITLIN T. DIMAGGIO
MOTION TO STRIKE TENTATIVE RULING:
The motion to strike is granted as to all matters. The Court may strike from a pleading “any irrelevant, false, or improper matter.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 436.) The ground for the motion must appear on the face of the pleading. Of those three grounds, the motion argues that the challenged matter are irrelevant.
A. “Irrelevant” Means “Not Essential” to the Pleading.
Plaintiffs argue that the challenged allegations are relevant “evidence.” (Opp. at 3:16-25) For a motion to strike, however, “irrelevant matter” means “immaterial allegation.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 431.10.) Thus, if an allegation is “not essential” or “not pertinent” to the claim, it is irrelevant and may be stricken.
B. The Challenged Matter Is not Essential to the Pleading.
1. The Detailed Manner in Which Keith Green was Killed.
Plaintiffs contend that allegations concerning the precise horrific and gruesome manner in which Green was killed is relevant to showing malice for purpose of punitive damages, and for purposes of proving that Defendants were the persons who killed him. Plaintiffs are correct in concept, but only for making a showing at trial. Without the challenged allegations, the Complaint contains more than enough specific allegations to support a claim for punitive damages and to implicate Defendants as the persons who killed Green. The challenged matter concerning the manner of Green’s death functions only as dramatic effect, not legal effect. 2. Defendant’s Prior Relationship with Keith Green
Plaintiffs contend that the nasty child-custody/visitation battle is relevant because it is evidence of Defendant Li’s motive to kill Green. While this might be true at trial, the motive to kill Green is not an element of any cause of action. The allegations do not support any cause of action; striking them does not impair any cause of action.
3. The Background and Relative Wealth of Defendant Li
Plaintiffs contend that Li’s upbringing and purported wealth is relevant to establishing the amount of punitive damages. This is true, but it pertains to evidence at trial, not pleading in a complaint. The extent of a defendant’s financial health is not relevant to pleading a claim for punitive damages. Generally, a defendant’s financial condition is often unknown to a plaintiff. (See Civ. Code sect. 3295, subd. (c) (barring discovery of financial condition without leave of court).) The extent of a defendant’s financial status is irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
Plaintiffs also contend that Defendant Li’s wealth is evidence of her power to convince her codefendants to kill Green. Again, this would be evidence at trial. A defendant’s financial ability to persuade others to do commit wrongful acts is not an element of any cause of action or relevant to establishing any element.
C. The Photographs Are Irrelevant.
None of the photographs in the complaint serves any pleading purpose. Defendants’ mug shots have no apparent purpose other than to depict Defendants as having been arrested. Their faces add nothing to the complaint.
The photo of an unidentified person in a kitchen (p.2) also serves no purpose, regardless of who the person is.
The photo of a house (p.6) adds nothing. It merely appears below the allegation that Green and Li lived in a “five-bedroom, five-bath, Hillsborough home located at 625 West Santa Inez Avenue in Hillsborough.” (Complaint ¶ 16.) The photo is not identified as that house. Further, there is no suggestion that Li owned the house (or any house), or what equity, if any, she held in the house. Regardless, the house and Defendant Li’s finances are not relevant to any element of any cause of action.
The “MISSING” poster serves no purpose in the complaint.
The photo of two unidentified people (p.6.) adds nothing to the complaint. Further, the persons in the photo are unidentified. The photo serves no purpose. D. Prayer for Attorney Fees
Plaintiffs correctly point out that attorney’s fees could be recoverable if a Defendant rejects a Section 998 offer and fails to obtain a more favorable result at trial. However, that would be true in any civil action. Plaintiff’s argument, if accepted, would permit pleading attorney’s fees in every civil action that did not allow attorney’s fees by contract or statute. The prayer for attorney’s fees is improper. E. Order
The matters designated as (a) through (kk) in the Notice of Motion are ordered stricken. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Defendants shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court. The Order shall set forth verbatim the matters that are stricken, as they are stated in the Notice of Motion.
Plaintiffs shall file and serve a First Amended Complaint that omits all of the stricken matter no later than October 9, 2018, or one week after service of written notice of this ruling, whichever is later.