DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
209·orange·Civil·General Civil
Hearing todayGRANTED

Newport Jewish Center vs. Auschwitz Study Foundation

Application to admit pro hac vice; Motion to strike

Hearing date
Aug 31, 2026
Department
C24
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffNewport Jewish Center
DefendantAuschwitz Study Foundation

Attorneys

Michael O. Crainfor Defendant

Ruling

meritorious and the demurrer is sustained to this cause of action with leave to amend. The motion of defendants Paul Bennett and Kathy Sakioka move to strike portions of the complaint by plaintiffs Simone and Ronald Cooper is GRANTED with leave to amend to the extent that it is not mooted by the ruling on the demurrer.

The individual paragraphs referenced in item 1 of the notice of motion are at the very end of the first, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth causes of action for negligence, fraud, retaliation, constructive eviction, unlawful rent increase/demand for excessive rent, and tenant harassment. They are identical and allege:

“The above conduct was the result of malice, fraud, and oppression, justifying punitive damages.”

Because the allegations are conclusory, they are defective to the extent they are not mooted by the ruling on the demurrer.

The CMC is continued from 8/31/26 to 12/14/26 at 8:45am in Dept. C24.

Defendants shall give notice.

209 Newport Jewish Defendant Auschwitz Study Foundation’s Center vs. application to admit counsel Michael O. Crain to Auschwitz appear pro hac vice is GRANTED and Defendant’s Study motion to strike portions of the complaint is Foundation GRANTED, in part.

Pro Hac Vice Application:

Counsel has submitted a verified application that complies with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 9.40.

Motion to Strike:

Item nos. 1-8 listed on Defendant’s notice of motion is GRANTED in full; Item no. 9 is GRANTED as to the prayer for attorney fees only. (See Code of Civ. Proc. § 436, subd. (a), § 431.10, subd. (b)(1-(3), (c); PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1682-1683 [standard].) Attorney fees are recoverable when authorized by contract, statute or law. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10).) Plaintiff concedes there is no contractual or statutory or other legal basis for the recovery of attorney fees.

Defendant shall give notice.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share