Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 24STCV15752, Date: 2024-12-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV15752    Hearing Date: December 18, 2024    Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No. 10

Arsin Rug Gallery vs. Pacific Design Center 1, LLC, et. al., Case No. 24STCV15752

Tentative Ruling re: Defendant’s Motion to Strike

Pacific Design Center, LLC (Defendant) moves to strike portions of Arsin Rug Gallery’s (Plaintiff) first amended complaint (FAC). Defendant’s motion to strike is denied.

The Court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a).) The Court may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the Court. (Id., § 436, subd. (b).) The grounds for a motion to strike are that the pleading has irrelevant, false or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws. (Id., § 436.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Id., § 437.) When granting a motion to strike, a court may grant the plaintiff leave to amend. (Id. § 435.5, subd. (c)(1).)

Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages and all paragraphs referencing punitive damages in the FAC. A plaintiff may recover punitive damages 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).) Malice is defined as conduct intended to injure the plaintiff or despicable conduct by a defendant acting with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others. (Id., § 3294, subd. (c)(1).) Oppression means despicable conduct subjecting a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of their rights. (Id., § 3294, subd. (c)(2).) And fraud refers to intentional misrepresentations or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant. (Id., § 3294, subd. (c)(3).)

Here, Plaintiff makes a conclusory allegation that Defendant “committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, and acted with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.” (FAC ¶ 67.) Allegations of mere negligence without an additional showing of intent to injure cannot serve as the basis for a punitive damages claim. (See Ebaugh v. Rabkin (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 891, 894.) However, Plaintiff’s allegation is bolstered by other facts pled in the FAC, including that Defendant failed to remedy the leak issue once notified (FAC ¶ 24.) Additionally, intrusion of mold resulting from the leaks created a health risk, which Plaintiff alleges Defendant refused to remediate. Such facts could support a finding that Defendant acted maliciously in exhibiting a “willful and conscious disregard for the rights and safety of others. Thus, Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages is supported by sufficient factual assertions in the FAC.

Defendant’s additional argument concerning consequential damages for business interruption is not properly brought before the Court, as no reference to it is contained in Defendant’s notice of motion. As such, the Court does not consider this argument