CANDACE LOW VS. SF AMC, LP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP DBA ET AL

Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Wednesday, March 04, 2026, Line 14.

Defendants' motion to strike the request for emotional distress damages in the first amended complaint ("FAC") is DENIED. (Berry v. Frazier (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 1258.) Moving Defendants seek to strike the request for emotional distress damages as a whole and do not highlight particular allegations. At the very least, the fraud and trespass to chattel claims support the prayer.

In Berry, the court allowed emotional distress damages where the veterinarian intentionally misrepresented the method of euthanasia. In this case, plaintiff similarly alleges that defendant intentionally misrepresented that the bone in Brody's leg was cancerous with a moth-eaten appearance and needed to be amputated. (FAC, pars. 25 (second one), 39, 58-59.)

"Trespass to chattel, although seldom employed as a tort theory in California ..., lies where an intentional interference with the possession of personal property has proximately caused injury." (Thrifty-Tel, Inc. v. Bezenek (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1566, fn. omitted.) Trespass to chattel can be alleged to recover for damages, including emotional distress damages, for injury to a pet dog because "[p]ets are considered property of their owners." (Kimes v. Grosser (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1556, 1559; see also Berry v. Frazier (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 1258, 1272-1273; Levy v. Only Cremations for Pets, Inc. (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 203, 216 [emotional distress damages are available in a trespass to chattel action].)

Moving Defendants' citation to McMahon v. Craig (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1502 is off point. "McMahon is inapposite as that court was not concerned with, and therefore had no occasion to address, the nature of damages that could be recovered for a claim of fraud based not on a veterinarian's malpractice but rather on intentional misrepresentations made to induce a pet owner to consent to an unnecessary, unjustified, and painful procedure." (Berry, 90 Cal.App.5th at 1270.)

Moving Defendants to file an answer within 20 days of notice of this order.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/JMQ) | |