(1) The demurrer to the Second Cause of Action for Interference with Economic Relations is sustained without leave to amend because the defendant did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care and the plaintiff failed to allege that the defendant's conduct was independently unlawful. (2) The motion to strike paragraph 29 of the SAC and paragraph c of the prayer to the second cause of action is granted without leave to amend because the plaintiff did not allege sufficient facts to support that the defendant acted with malice or oppression to warrant punitive damages.

1. Tentative Rulings: Department 4 November 13, 2015
Civil Law and Motion Calendar
If you wish to appear for oral argument, you must so notify the court and opposing counsel by
4:00 p.m. one court day before the hearing, pursuant to CRC 3.1308. The court telephone
number is (209) 533-6524
Absent a request for oral argument, the tentative ruling will be adopted as final at the time set for
hearing.
______________________________________________________________________________
1
1. CV59014 Terry Northcutt v. Ralph Brick, et al.
(1.) Motion hearing: Demurrer
Moving party: Defendants
(2.) Motion hearing: Motion to Strike
Moving party: Defendants
Tentative Ruling: (1.) The Demurrer to the Second Cause of Action for Interference with
Economic Relations is Sustained without Leave to Amend.
Tentative Ruling: (2.) The Motion to Strike Paragraph 29 of the SAC, appearing at lines
9 through 12, on page 5 and paragraph c of the prayer to the
second cause of action of the SAC, appearing at line 23 on page 6 is
granted without Leave to Amend.
On September 2, 2015, plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) in which three
(3) causes of action are set out: 1. Negligence, 2. Interference with Economic Relations, and 3.
Trespass to Land Encroachment upon an Easement. Plaintiff alleges that he owns real property
in Long Barn, Tuolumne County, California adjacent to two (2) lots owned by defendants Ralph
Brick and Thomas Brick. Plaintiff further alleges that defendants have piles of debris and junked
cars scattered across their lots which devalue his properties (sic) and render the selling of his one
property almost impossible. (SAC, p. 2, ¶7.) Also, the SAC references Exhibits 1 through 3
which are not attached to the SAC filed with the Court.
Defendants demur to the Second Cause of Action of the SAC on the grounds that it is uncertain
and fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for interference with economic
relations against defendants. Plaintiff filed opposition to the demurrer and motion to strike on
November 2, 2015, and defendants filed a reply on November 6, 2015.
(1.) Interference with Economic Relationship
The Third District Court of Appeal has held: “The tort of negligent interference with economic
relationship arises only when the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care. (J'Aire Corp. v.
Gregory (1979) 24 Cal.3d 799, 803.)

2. Tentative Rulings: Department 4 November 13, 2015
Civil Law and Motion Calendar
If you wish to appear for oral argument, you must so notify the court and opposing counsel by
4:00 p.m. one court day before the hearing, pursuant to CRC 3.1308. The court telephone
number is (209) 533-6524
Absent a request for oral argument, the tentative ruling will be adopted as final at the time set for
hearing.
______________________________________________________________________________
2
In the instant case, plaintiff alleges that defendants have disrupted his relationship with the real
estate company and potential buyers. (SAC, p. 4, ¶ 19.) “Defendants have disrupted plaintiff’s
business relationship with his real estate company by interfering with agents and potential buyers
by standing at the property boundary between defendants’ property and plaintiff’s property and
glaring menacingly at the real estate agents attempting to show the property, as well as the
prospective buyers. Defendants also erected numerous large “No Trespassing” signs facing
plaintiff’s property, each in a direct line of sight of every window in the plaintiff’s home and
proliferated the accumulation of junk and debris abutting plaintiff’s rightful use and enjoyment
of the property – neither of which creates a tenable circumstance to market a property for sale.
Additionally, defendants have gone so far as to call and threaten real estate agents who were
attempting to see the property, even leaving harassing and threatening voicemails at their place
of business.” (SAC, p.4, ¶21.) However, this conduct on the part of defendants is not actionable
(Yurick v. Superior Court (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1116, 1129.) All of the activity of which
plaintiff complains occurred on defendants’ property and the allegation of “glaring menacingly”
is uncertain and ambiguous and subject to a motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.)
In alleging a cause of action for interference with economic advantage, a plaintiff must also show
that the defendant’s conduct was independently unlawful in that it is proscribed by some
constitutional, statutory, regulatory, common law, or other determinable legal standard.
(Winchester Mystery House, LLC v. Global Asylum, Inc. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 579, 596.)
Here, the plaintiff alleges defendants violated Sections 8.12.030 and 8.16.020 of the “Municipal
Code” (SAC, p.2, ¶12); however; Long Barn is not a municipality and, if the code reference is to
the Tuolumne County Ordinance Code, Section 8.12.030 refers to Agricultural Burning and
Section 8.12.020 refers to the storage of explosives, neither of which give rise to a duty of
defendants to plaintiff and neither of which are at issue in this case.
Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action against defendants in the Second Cause of Action of
the SAC for interference with economic advantage so that the Court will sustain the demurrer
without leave to amend.
(2.) Motion to Strike
Defendants filed a motion to strike Paragraph 29 of the SAC, appearing at lines 9 through 12, on
page 5; and Paragraph c of the prayer to the second cause of action of the SAC, appearing at
lines 23, on page 6. Paragraph 29 of the SAC appears within the second cause of action for
interference with economic relations at page 5 and states as follows:

3. Tentative Rulings: Department 4 November 13, 2015
Civil Law and Motion Calendar
If you wish to appear for oral argument, you must so notify the court and opposing counsel by
4:00 p.m. one court day before the hearing, pursuant to CRC 3.1308. The court telephone
number is (209) 533-6524
Absent a request for oral argument, the tentative ruling will be adopted as final at the time set for
hearing.
______________________________________________________________________________
3
“At the time of defendants’ interference with economic relations, defendants were guilty of
malice, oppression, and/or fraud, in conscious disregard of plaintiff’s rights, thereby warranting
an assessment of punitive damages in favor of plaintiff and against defendant [sic] in an amount
appropriate to punish defendants and deter others from engaging in similar conduct.”
“In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by
clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice,
the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and
by way of punishing the defendant.” (Civ. Code, § 3294.)
“‘Malice’ means conduct which is 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.” (Civ. Code, § 3294(c)(1).)
“The mere allegation an intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to warrant an award of
punitive damages. (See Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 894, 157 Cal.Rptr. 693,
598 P.2d 854, citing Prosser, Law of Torts (4th ed. 1971) § 2, at pp. 9-10.) Not only must there
be circumstances of oppression, fraud or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to
support such a claim. (G.D. Searle & Co. v. Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22.) [Footnote
omitted.]” (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166.)
Here, the plaintiff states no facts tending to support a conclusion that either defendant intended to
harm plaintiff or to cause injury to plaintiff’s land. While the allegations in the SAC may
indicate unfriendly or boorish conduct, the allegations do not allege conduct amounting to
malice or oppression as those terms are defined in Civ. Code, § 3294.) The motion to strike
paragraph 29 of the SAC appearing at lines 9 through 12, on page 5 and paragraph c of the
prayer to the second cause of action of the SAC, appearing at line 23, on page 6, will be granted.