Case Number: BC517857    Hearing Date: July 08, 2014    Dept: 56

Case Name: Naghi, et al. v. Oldman, Cooley, et al.
Case No.: BC517857
Motion: Motion to Strike

Tentative Ruling: Motion to strike is denied.

Plaintiffs Nicole, Ryan and Danielle Naghi filed this legal malpractice action against Defendants Oldman, Cooley, Sallus, Gold, Birnberg & Coleman LLP and Marshal Oldman. The operative pleading is the First Amended Complaint, which asserts causes of action for professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages, arguing that the FAC fails to allege facts supporting fraud, malice, or oppression. “In order to survive a motion to strike an allegation of punitive damages, the ultimate facts showing an entitlement to such relief must be pled by a plaintiff. In passing on the correctness of a ruling on a motion to strike, judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth. In ruling on a motion to strike, courts do not read allegations in isolation.” Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ allegations fail to meet the threshold for punitive damages, relying principally on legal malpractice cases such as American Airlines v. Sheppard, Mullin (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1017 and Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033. American Airlines was decided on summary judgment, and the undisputed evidence established a technical conflict of interest with no intent to injure the plaintiff. 96 Cal.App.4th at 1051-52. Smith was decided on demurrer, but the complaint alleged a single cause of action for legal malpractice from negligent conduct with conclusory allegations of entitlement to punitive damages. 10 Cal.App.4th at 1041-42.

Our case is different. Plaintiffs have alleged legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, and they have specifically alleged that Defendants made knowing misrepresentations about their experience, conduct and investigation, which caused Plaintiffs to agree to an unfavorable settlement that Defendants advocated. At the pleading stage, Plaintiffs’ factual allegations are sufficient.

The motion to strike is denied, and Defendants shall answer within 10 days.