Case Name: Yash Sandesara v. Gita Kashani, et al.

Case No.: 18CV324976

Motion of Defendants to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Complaint

Factual and Procedural Background

On or about October 4, 2016, plaintiff Yash Sandesara (“Sandesara”) and defendants Gita Kashani and Behzad Kashani (collectively, “Kashanis”) entered into a written contract entitled, “Month-to-Month Rental Agreement,” (“Rental Agreement”) whereby plaintiff Sandesara would lease real property located at 27011 Dezahara Way in Los Altos Hills (“Subject Property”) from November 1, 2016 until December 5, 2017. (Complaint, ¶6 and Exh. 1.)

Plaintiff Sandesara completely vacated the Subject Property on December 5, 2017. (Complaint, ¶7.) Plaintiff Sandesara and defendant Gita Kashani completed two “walk-through” inspections of the Subject Property on December 5, 2017. (Complaint, ¶8.) The only potential damage that defendant Gita Kashani informed plaintiff Sandesara about was the platform bed located in the master bedroom. (Id.)

Pursuant to the Rental Agreement, plaintiff Sandesara paid and defendant Kashanis retained $30,000 as a security deposit. (Complaint, ¶10.) Pursuant to the Rental Agreement and Civil Code section 1950.5, defendants were required to provide plaintiff with an itemized statement indicating the amount of any security deposit and the basis for its disposition within 21 days of plaintiff vacating the Subject Property. (Complaint, ¶11.)

On March 8, 2018, defendants sent plaintiff email correspondence purporting to be an itemized statement. (Complaint, ¶12.) Plaintiff Sandesara did not agree to accept correspondence by email. (Complaint, ¶18.) The itemized statement was not sent by personal delivery or first class mail; was untimely; did not include any supplemental documentation setting forth the basis for charges incurred for alleged repairs or cleaning; and included defective items that preexisted plaintiff’s tenancy. (Complaint, ¶¶13 – 17 and 19.)

On March 14, 2018, plaintiff Sandesara filed a complaint against defendants asserting causes of action for:

(1) Breach of Contract
(2) Conversion
(3) Violation of Civil Code §1950.5
(4) Unlawful Business Practice in Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 et seq.

On May 24, 2018, defendant Kashanis filed the motion now before the court, a motion to strike portions of plaintiff Sandesara’s complaint, and also filed a cross-complaint against Sandesara and cross-defendants Sunny Patel and Dashkey “Danny” Patel.

According to the cross-complaint, the Kashanis entered into a written lease agreement for the Subject Property with Sandesara and Sunny Patel. (Cross-Complaint, ¶¶6 and 12.) Cross-defendant Dashkey “Danny” Patel signed the Rental Agreement as a guarantor. (Id.) Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, certain items of personal property would be included for cross-defendants’ use and enjoyment. (Cross-Complaint, ¶13.) During the tenancy, cross-defendants caused significant damage to the Subject Property and to the items of personal property requiring replacement and/or repair. (Cross-Complaint, ¶¶14 – 15 and 18 – 19.) Cross-defendants refused to pay for any of the damage. (Cross-Complaint, ¶16.)

The Kashanis’ cross-complaint asserts causes of action for:

(1) Breach of Contract
(2) Negligence [versus Sandesara and Sunny Patel]

On July 25, 2018, plaintiff Sandesara filed opposition to the Kashanis’ motion to strike.

II. Defendant Kashanis’ motion to strike portions of plaintiff Sandesara’s complaint is DENIED.

Defendant Kashanis move to strike plaintiff fourth cause of action for unlawful business practice and plaintiff’s prayer for attorney’s fees. At paragraph 49 of the complaint, plaintiff identifies Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 as the statutory basis for attorney’s fees. “Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 ‘is a codification of the private attorney general doctrine adopted by the California Supreme Court.’ [Citation.] Section 1021.5 provides in relevant part: ‘Upon motion, a court may award attorneys’ fees to a successful party against one or more opposing parties in any action which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest if: (a) a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary, has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons, (b) the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement, or of enforcement by one public entity against another public entity, are such as to make the award appropriate, and (c) such fees should not in the interest of justice be paid out of the recovery, if any.’” (Snatchko v. Westfield, LLC (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 469, 496, fn. 15 (Snatchko).)

“ ‘There is no requirement that the intent to seek attorney fees under section 1021.5 must be pleaded in the underlying action. [Citation.] Such fees are not part of the underlying cause of action, but are incidents to the cause and are properly awarded after entry of a … judgment … .’ [Citation.] As there was no requirement they be pled at all, the trial court erred in striking Snatchko’s prayer for attorney fees based on a failure to adequately plead their basis … .” (Snatchko, supra, 187 Cal.App.4th at p. 497.)

On that basis, defendants’ motion to strike portions of plaintiff’s complaint is DENIED.