Unknown v. Unknown

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 517) August 27, 2026 DEPARTMENT 517 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Plaintiffs' motion for an order striking in their entirety the costs that Defendant is seeking through the memorandum of costs that it filed, or alternatively, for an order to tax certain of the costs itemized in the Defendant's memorandum. Plaintiffs' motion to strike all of Defendant's claimed costs is based on the proposition that the filing of Defendant's memorandum of costs was untimely under rule 3.1700 of the California Rules of Court. Plaintiffs are incorrect. The memorandum of costs was timely filed.

The Court will explain the basis for this conclusion at the hearing today. As for Plaintiffs' alternative request in their motion to strike certain items of costs if the costs are not stricken in their entirety, the Court will take this portion of the motion under submission and issue a ruling in the coming days. Case Number: 26STCV07288 Hearing Date: August 27, 2026 Dept: 517 Pending before the Court is the motion of Defendant William Warren Properties, Inc. dba Storquest Self Storage ("Storquest") to strike the prayer for an award of punitive and exemplary damages against Storquest in the First Amended Complaint ("the FAC") of Plaintiff Stacey Tucker ("Tucker").

The Court is granting Storequest's motion. The Court previously granted Storequest's motion to strike the prayer for an award of punitive damages against Storquest in Tucker's initial Complaint. In reaching that conclusion, the Court observed that punitive damages could be awarded on Tucker's claim for conversion in the initial Complaint but that the allegations in the Complaint were insufficient to establish facts necessary under Civil Code section 3294 for the imposition of such an award. First, the allegations failed to show that Storquest acted with malice, oppression, or fraud in converting Tucker's property.

Second, the allegations failed to show that any officer, director, or managing agent of Storequest, a corporate employer, had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee(s) who converted Tucker's property and employed him/her/them with a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of others or authorized or ratified the employee(s)' wrongful conduct. The Court agrees with Storequest that the allegations in the FAC fail to cure these two pleading defects the Court identified in its ruling granting Storequest's motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages in the initial Complaint.

None of the allegations added to the mix in the FAC does this trick. Tucker's arguments to the contrary in her opposition to Storquest's motion are unavailing. It is true that, in the FAC, Tucker has added new claims that were not in the initial Complaint -- claims that, like conversion, could support an award of punitive damages. One of those new claims is for fraudulent concealment. Tucker alleges that Storquest acted fraudulently in connection with the transfer of Tucker's property. The problem is that Tucker added the fraud claim, as well as all the other new claims in the FAC, which are for trespass to chattels, aiding and abetting, and violations of Penal Code section 496, subdivision (c), without obtaining leave from the Court to add them.

Tucker also added two new Defendants, Luxury Buyers, Inc. and Nick Migalgo, without leave of the Court. In granting Storequest's prior to motion to strike with leave to amend, the Court did not give Tucker leave to add new claims and parties. it simply gave Tucker leave to amend to cure the pleading defects as to the prayer for punitive damages on the conversion claim in the initial Complaint. The Court is setting for September 30, 2026 at 8:30, which is the date and time for the case management conference in this case, an order to show cause as to why the Court should not on its own motion strike the new claims and two new Defendants in the FAC on the ground that Tucker made these additions without leave from the Court.

At the September 30, 2026 hearing, the Court also will address whether Tucker should be given leave to amend one more time to cure the pleading defects as to the prayer for punitive damages against Storequest in the FAC. Thus, Storequest's motion to strike is continued to that date for that limited purpose. Case Number: BC690742 Hearing Date: August 27, 2026 Dept: 517 The Court is inclined to grant the alternative relief that Defendant seeks in its motion to unseal that is on the Court's calendar today.

The Court will discuss this tentative ruling with counsel at the hearing. The Court takes this opportunity to inform counsel that the case will be called last on the calendar today. The calendar is not all that heavy, however. |