Sophie Yeh v. The Harker School, et al.

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 12 Honorable Nahal Iravani-Sani, Presiding Courtroom Clerk, Ryan Nguyen 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2230

DATE: 05/29/2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.

LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 21CV392455 Advoque Safeguard LLC, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION et al. v. Benham Pourdeyhimi, et al. Control click or scroll down to Line 1 LINE 2 23CV416938 Patel et al. (Cross MOTION TO COMPEL Complainants) v. Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Please control click or scroll down to Line 2 Appel, Inc. (Cross- Defendant) LINE 3 23CV418929 Sophie Yeh MOTION TO STRIKE v. The Harker School, et al. Please control click or scroll down to Line 3 LINE 4 24CV430700 Metropolis Systems MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE & SANCTIONS LLC v.

Cryptic Labs LLC Requirement to comply with a court order is self-evident. Motion to compel compliance with Court’s November 14, 2025 order is GRANTED. Sanctions are warranted but the requested amount of $24,500 is not supported. DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff granted leave to file supplemental declaration outlining the calculation of attorneys’ fees and costs sought, together with a proposed order. Plaintiff to prepare final proposed order accompanied by necessary Form EFS-020 within 7 days of the hearing.

LINE 5 24CV451231 Hernandez Padilla MOTION TO COMPEL v. La Michoacana Plus et al. Off calendar at request of moving party Case remains as previously scheduled for trial 8/3/2026

LINE 6 25CV481671 Ximen Service by Electronic mail v. Linktel Technologies, Inc. Please control click or scroll down to Line 6

Calendar Line 3 Case Name: Sophie Yeh v. The Harker School, et al. Case No.: 23-CV-418929

Factual and Procedural Background

On September 23, 2025, cross-complainant The Harker School (“Harker”) filed a crosscomplaint against cross-defendant Commercial Tree Care (“CTC”) alleging causes of action for: (1) fraud; (2) breach of contract; (3) negligence; (4) equitable indemnity; (5) apportionment/contribution; and (6) Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200, et seq.

On November 20, 2025, Harker dismissed the sixth cause of action from the cross-complaint.

Currently before the court is a motion to strike the request for punitive damages in the crosscomplaint by cross-defendant CTC. Harker filed written opposition. CTC filed reply papers.

Trial is scheduled for October 12, 2026.

Motion to Strike Request for Punitive Damages

“In order to state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a complaint must set forth the elements as stated in the general punitive damage statute, Civil Code section 3294. [Citation.] These statutory elements include allegations that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice. [Citation.] ‘ “Malice” ’ is defined in the statute as conduct ‘intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.’ [Citations.] ‘ “Oppression” means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.’ [Citation.] ‘ “Fraud” ’ is ‘an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.’ [Citation.]” (Turman v.

Turning Point of Central California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.)

“In determining whether a complaint states facts sufficient to sustain punitive damages, the challenged allegations must be read in context with the other facts alleged in the complaint. Further, even though certain language pleads ultimate facts or conclusions of law, such language when read in context with the facts alleged as to defendants’ conduct may adequately plead the evil motive requisite to recovery of punitive damages. [Citation.]” (Monge v. Super. Ct. (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 503, 510.)

“When a defendant must produce evidence in defense of an exemplary damage claim; fairness demands that he receive adequate notice of the kind of conduct charged against him.” (G.D. Searle & Co. v. Super. Ct. (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 29.)

The operative cross-complaint includes a fraud claim alleging that:

• CTC knowingly, intentionally, and falsely with deceit represented to Harker, through written and oral conversations and contracts and its website, its capabilities, its scope of work, and its assessments of the trees on Harker’s campuses. • It was CTC’s intent to induce Harker to rely upon these representations in the care, management, and maintenance of the trees on Harker’s campuses. • Harker justifiably relied upon CTC’s representations as International Society of Arboriculture certified arborists retained to perform certain work and duties. • CTC acted with an intent to deceive by making representations and promises related to their services and expertise, knowing they would not in fact provide those services to Harker. (See Cross-Complaint at ¶¶ 21-23, 27.)

Here, cross-defendant CTC argues there are insufficient facts pled to support an award of punitive damages, including Harker’s allegations incorporated in the fraud cause of action. But, to the extent that CTC contends the fraud claim has not been adequately pled, the proper procedural vehicle for challenging the sufficiency of the fraud cause of action is by demurrer, or if an answer is filed, by motion for judgment on the pleadings. (See Angie M. v. Super. Ct. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1223 [“A demurrer tests the sufficiency of the pleadings, the allegations of which must be accepted as true by the court for purposes of review.”]; Osornio v.

Weingarten (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 304, 315 [A general demurrer is where the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.]; see also Hong Soo Shin v. Oyoung Kong (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 498, 502-503 [“[T]he purpose of a motion for judgment on the pleadings is to test the sufficiency of the pleadings.”].) CTC has not filed any separate demurrer or motion for judgment on the pleadings to challenge the fraud claim. And, a wellpleaded fraud claim is sufficient to support an award for punitive damages. (See Stevens v.

Super. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 605, 610 [pleading of fraud is sufficient for punitive damages].)

Consequently, the motion to strike the request for punitive damages is DENIED.

Disposition

The motion to strike the request for punitive damages is DENIED.

The court will prepare the Order.

- oo0oo -