Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 24STCV09235, Date: 2024-08-07 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 24STCV09235    Hearing Date: August 7, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Plaintiff Tomika Smalls (“Plaintiff”) sues Defendant Lawrence Title (“Defendant”), alleging that Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff all minimum and overtimes wages due and owing, failed to provide her with duty-free meal and rest breaks at the required intervals, failed to pay her reimbursable expenses, failed to provide sick pay, and failed to keep accurate records as to Plaintiff's compensation.

The operative complaint filed 4/12/24 alleges causes of action for: (1) failure to pay minimum wages for all hours worked in violation of Labor Code sections 1194, 1194.2, and 1197.1; (2) failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked in violation of Labor Code sections 510 and 1194.2; (3) failure to provide meal and rest breaks in violation of Labor Code sections 226.7, 512, and IWC Wage Order 5; (4) failure to pay reimbursable expenses in violation of Labor Code section 2802; (5) failure to provide accurate wage statements in violation of Labor Code section 226; (6) failure to pay wages due upon termination; waiting time penalties [Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203]; (7) violation of Labor Code section 233; (8) violation of Labor Code section 558.1; and (9) Unlawful/Unfair Business Practice.

Defendant now brings an unopposed Motion to Strike the prayers for (1) punitive damages, and (2) loss of earnings, employment benefits, and employment opportunities from the complaint.

After review, and for the following reasons, the Court GRANTS without leave to amend the motion to strike.

Motion to Strike: GRANTED without leave to amend

Legal Standard 

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 435, subd. (b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1322, subd. (b).) The court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion and upon terms it deems proper: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc. § 436, subd. (a)-(b); Stafford v. Shultz¿(1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782 [“Matter in a pleading which is not essential to the claim is surplusage; probative facts are surplusage and may be stricken out or disregarded”].) However, Courts have noted that a motion to strike should be applied cautiously and sparingly because it is used to strike substantive defects. (PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1682-83.) A party cannot use a motion to strike as a “line-item veto.” (Id. at p. 1683 [“We emphasize that such use of the motion to strike should be cautious and paring” and “have no intention of creating a procedure ‘line-item veto’ for the civil defendant”].)

For the purposes of a motion to strike pursuant to Sections 435 to 437 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the term “pleading” means a demurrer, answer, complaint, or cross-complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (a).) An immaterial allegation or irrelevant matter in a pleading entail (1) an allegation that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense, (2) an allegation that is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense, or (3) a demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint or cross-complaint. (Code Civ. Proc.,¿§¿431.10, subds. (b)(1)-(3).) 

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Id.)

Analysis

Punitive Damages: GRANTED without leave to amend

To support a claim for punitive damages, a plaintiff must allege facts and circumstances showing conduct constituting malice, fraud or oppression.¿(Grieves v. Superior Court¿(1984) 157 Cal. App. 3d 159, 166.) The predicate acts to support a claim for punitive damages must be intended to cause injury or must constitute “malicious conduct,” defined as “despicable conduct” carried on by Defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights of others. (Code Civ. Proc. § 3294(a).) Oppressive conduct is defined as “despicable conduct” that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of a person’s rights. (Code Civ. Proc. § 3294(c).)¿¿Plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating that “the defendant acted in such an outrageous and reprehensible manner that the jury could infer that he knowingly disregarded the substantial certainty of injury to others." (Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 82, 90.) Moreover, a claim for punitive damages cannot be pleaded generally and allegations that a defendant acted "with oppression, fraud and malice" toward plaintiff are insufficient legal conclusions to show that the plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages. (Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 872.) Rather, specific factual allegations are required to support a claim for punitive damages. (Id.)

“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).)

Here, appellate authority indicates that in most cases, causes of action based solely on alleged violations of the Labor Code’s wage-and-hour provisions do not give rise to the possibility of punitive damages. (Brewer v. Premier Golf Properties, LP (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1243, 1252 [applying the “new right-exclusive remedy” doctrine to conclude that punitive damages “are not recoverable when liability is premised solely on the employer's violation of the Labor Code statutes that regulate meal and rest breaks, pay stubs, and minimum wage laws”].)

Because this is an action for violation of the Labor Code that regulates meal and rest breaks, pay stubs, and minimum wage laws, the motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages is granted. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to show that the complaint can be successfully amended. As such, leave to amend will not be allowed.

Prayer for loss of earnings, employment benefits, and employment opportunities according to proof: GRANTED without leave to amend

“When a statute recognizes a cause of action for violation of a right, all forms of relief granted to civil litigants generally, including appropriate punitive damages, are available unless a contrary legislative intent appears.” (Commodore Home Systems, Inc. v. Superior Court (1982) 32 Cal.3d 211, 215 [authorizing punitive damages in FEHA action].) “As a general rule, where a statute creates a right that did not exist at common law and provides a comprehensive and detailed remedial scheme for its enforcement, the statutory remedy is exclusive.” (Rojo v. Kliger (1990) 52 Cal.3d 65, 79.)

Here, the statutes under the Labor Code cited in the complaint provide a detailed remedial scheme, and therefore the remedies provided are exclusive. For example, Labor Code section 1194.2 states: “In any action under Section 98, 1193.6, 1194, or 1197.1 to recover wages because of the payment of a wage less than the minimum wage fixed by an order of the commission or by statute, an employee shall be entitled to recover liquidated damages in an amount equal to the wages unlawfully unpaid and interest thereon.” (Lab. Code, § 1194.2.) The statutes do not mention that there are other remedies available. Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition to contend otherwise. As such, the motion to strike is granted without leave to amend.

Conclusion 

Defendant’s Motion to Strike is GRANTED without leave to amend.