Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 22STCV18779, Date: 2022-08-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV18779 Hearing Date: August 26, 2022 Dept: 30
Calendar No.
Kara vs. Downtown
Apex Motors, LLC, et al., Case
No. 22STCV18779
Tentative Ruling re:
Defendant’s Motion to Strike
Defendant Downtown Apex Motors, LLC
dba Maserati of Puente Hills dba Alfa Romeo of Puente Hills (Defendant) moves
to strike the portions of the Complaint of Plaintiff Anna Kara (Plaintiff)
relating to punitive damages. The motion is denied.
Any party may file a timely notice
of a motion to strike the whole or any part of a pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., §
435, subd. (b).) The motion may seek to strike any “irrelevant, false or
improper matter inserted in any pleading” or any part of the pleading “not
drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an
order of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) Irrelevant allegations include
allegations that are not essential to the statement of a claim, allegations
that are not pertinent to or supported by the claim and demands for judgment
requesting relief not supported by the allegations. (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10,
subds. (b), (c).)
“[W]hen a substantive defect is clear from the
face of a complaint, such as a violation of the applicable statute of
limitations or a purported claim of right which is legally invalid, a defendant
may attack that portion of the cause of action by filing a motion to strike.” (PH
II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1682–1683.)
Punitive damages may be imposed where it is proven by clear
and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression,
fraud, or malice. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).)
Civil Code § 3294, subd. (b), states as follows:
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.
Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts three causes of action against Defendant
for violations of the CLRA (Civ. Code §§ 1750, et seq.), violations of
the UCL (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.), and bond liability. Plaintiff
alleges that she purchased a 2016 Infiniti Q50 (the Vehicle) from Defendant, a
used car dealer, on December 5, 2020. (Comp. ¶ 6.) Defendant made false
representations to Plaintiff regarding the Vehicle’s condition, and also
falsely represented that the Vehicle was covered under the manufacturer’s
powertrain warranty, which led Plaintiff to decline to purchase an extended
warranty. (Comp. ¶¶ 7, 9.) The Vehicle later needed an engine replacement,
which a factory-authorized repair facility refused to repair under warranty.
(Comp. ¶ 10.) On contacting the manufacturer’s customer service department,
Plaintiff learned that the Vehicle’s engine warranty had been voided before
Plaintiff purchased the vehicle due to improper maintenance. (Comp. ¶ 10.)
Plaintiff seeks recovery of punitive damages pursuant to her CLRA cause
of aciton. (Comp. ¶ 16, Prayer 3.)
Under the
CLRA, “[a]ny consumer who suffers any damage as a result of the use or
employment by any person of a method, act, or practice declared to be unlawful
by Section 1770 may bring an action against that person
to recover or obtain” relief including “punitive damages.” (Civ. Code § 1780,
subd. (a)(4).) Section 1770 lists a number of “unfair methods of competition
and unfair or deceptive acts or practices.”
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
committed various unfair or deceptive acts under the CLRA. (Comp. ¶ 13.) The CLRA specifically provides for recovery of punitive
damages by a consumer who suffers any damage from such practices. Plaintiff’s
allegation that she would not have purchased the vehicle absent the
misrepresentations is sufficient to show “any damage” under the CLRA. (Gutierrez v. Carmax Auto Superstores California (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1234, 1264.) The allegations that
Defendant falsely represented the condition and warranties on the Vehicle are
sufficient to show “oppression, fraud, or malice.”
Defendant
argues that Plaintiff has failed to plead that an “officer, director, or
managing agent of the corporation” consciously disregarded, authorized, or
ratified each act of oppression, fraud, or malice, as required for recovery of
punitive damages against a corporate defendant. (Civ. Code § 3294, subd. (b); see
White v. Ultramar, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 563, 577.)
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s “corporate
officers, directors, or managing agents personally acted
with oppression, fraud, or malice; had advance knowledge of the unfitness of
the employees who acted towards Plaintiff with
malice, oppression, or fraud; employed such employees with conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others;
and/or themselves authorized or ratified the wrongful
conduct.” (Comp. ¶ 16.) These general allegations are sufficient to plead grounds
for recovery of punitive damages against Defendant under Section 3294. (See
Kanfer v. Pharmacare US, Inc. (S.D. Cal. 2015) 142 F.Supp.3d 1091, 1108
[denying motion to strike punitive damages based on Section 3294(b) where
plaintiff alleged that “senior officers and directors ... allowed [product] to
be sold with full knowledge or reckless disregard that the challenged claims
are fraudulent, unlawful, and misleading”].)