Judge: Andre De La Cruz, Case: 2022-01296697, Date: 2023-08-07 Tentative Ruling

1. Motion to Strike Portions Of Complaint filed by Postmates, LLC on 4/3/23

Defendant Postmates, LLC, erroneously sued as Postmates, Inc. (“Defendant”) filed a Motion to Strike punitive damages from the Complaint.  The unopposed Motion is GRANTED.

As an initial matter, pursuant to CCP § 435.5, “the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the objections to be raised in the motion to strike.” See CCP § 435.5(a). In this instance, it appears that the parties exchanged emails to address the underlying motion. The parties are advised, however, that email exchange is not an adequate meet and confer for purposes of the applicable statute.

The above notwithstanding, Plaintiff failed to oppose the Motion to Strike.  The Court may consider such non-opposition as an abandonment of any opposition to the issues raised by Defendant in the Motion to Strike.  Herzberg v. County of Plumas, 133 Cal. App. 4th 1, 20 (2005).  As such, the Court construes Plaintiff’s non-opposition an abandonment of the issues raised in the Motion to Strike. Id.

As to the merits, Plaintiff failed to state facts sufficient to support a punitive damages claim against Defendant Postmates, LLC, a corporation. 

“Corporations are legal entities which do not have minds capable of recklessness, wickedness, or intent to injure or deceive.” See Cruz v. HomeBase, 83 Cal. App. 4th 160, 167 (2005).  “An award of punitive damages against a corporation therefore must rest on the malice of the corporation’s employees.” Id.

Civil Code section 3294(b), states:

“An employer shall not be liable for damages pursuant to subdivision (a), based upon acts of an employee of the employer, unless the employer had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. With respect to a corporate employer, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation.” Civ. Code § 3294(b).

“But the law does not impute every employee’s malice to the corporation.” See Cruz, supra.  “Instead, the punitive damage statute requires proof of malice among corporate leaders: the ‘officer[s], director[s], or managing agent[s].’” Id. “Managing agents” are employees who “exercise[] substantial discretionary authority over decisions that ultimately determine corporate policy,” such as those “decisions that set these general principles and rules.” Id. at pp. 167-68; Roby v. McKesson Corp., 47 Cal. 4th 686, 714-15 (2009).

Here, Plaintiff’s only allegation in the complaint is as follows:

“Defendant Postmates Inc. negligent [sic] hired, trained, supervised, and retained its employees and agents including Co-defendant Babatomiwa Adegoke whose gross negligence in retrieving a shopping order for Postmates, Inc. on December 24, 2020 resulted in serious injuries to Plaintiff Annie Cheng.”  (ROA 2.)

This is insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages. As such, the Motion to Strike is GRANTED WITH 21 CALENDAR DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND.

Defendant Postmates, LLC to give notice.