Judge: Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case: 23STCV03818, Date: 2023-08-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV03818 Hearing Date: August 29, 2023 Dept: 58
Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki
Hearing Date: August 29,
2023
Case Name: Burs v. David
Klass Wholesale Jewelry
Case No.: 23STCV03818
Matter: Motion to Strike
Moving Party: Defendant David Klass Wholesale Jewelry
Responding Party: Plaintiff Anne Burs
Tentative Ruling: The motion to strike is granted with leave to
amend.
This case arises out of an employment
dispute. Plaintiff Anne Burs (Plaintiff) alleges that she was employed
by Defendant David Klass Wholesale Jewelry (Defendant Employer) from
approximately August 2019 through November 2022; she alleges that Defendant
Employer violated numerous labor laws and unlawfully terminated her in
retaliation for her reporting the sexual harassment committed by Defendant Elad
Iton, an alleged “business partner” of Defendant Employer. (Compl., ¶ 10.)
The Complaint contains causes of
action for (1) Misclassification as an Independent Contractor; (2) Failure to
Provide Meal Breaks; (3) Failure to Provide Rest Breaks; (4) Failure to Prevent
Harassment; (5) Retaliation; (6) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public
Policy; (7) Failure to Timely Pay Wages Upon Termination; (8) Assault; and (9)
Sexual Battery.
On April 14, 2023, Defendant Employer moved to strike the request for punitive
damages. Plaintiff opposed the motion to strike.
The
motion to strike is granted with leave to amend.
LEGAL STANDARD
“The court may, upon a motion made
pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it
deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted
in any pleading. (b) Strike out 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.”¿(Code Civ. Proc. § 436.) “Immaterial” or “irrelevant” matters
include allegations not essential to the claim, allegations neither pertinent
to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or a demand for judgment
requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint. (Code Civ.
Proc. § 431.10, subds. (b)(1)-(3).)
DISCUSSION
Defendant Employer moves to strike
the request for punitive damages. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that she has pled
sufficient facts to support the request for punitive damages.
A claim for punitive damages in a complaint
must allege that the defendant “has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice.”
(Civ. Code § 3294, subd. (a).) “Oppression’ means despicable conduct that
subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that
person's rights.” (Civ. Code § 3294¿subd. (c)(2).)¿“Fraud means an intentional
misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the
defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving
a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.” (Civ. Code §
3294,¿subd. (c)(3).) “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¿subd. (c)(1); see Taylor v. Superior Court
(1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895-896.)
To survive a motion to
strike allegations of punitive damages, “the ultimate facts showing an
entitlement to such relief must be pled by a plaintiff. [Citations.]
In passing on the correctness of a ruling on a motion to strike, judges
read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all
parts in their context, and assume their truth.
[Citations.] In ruling on a motion
to strike, courts do not read allegations in isolation. [Citation.]” (Clauson
v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.)¿“The mere allegation
an intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to warrant an award of
punitive damages.¿ [Citation.] ¿Not only must there be circumstances of
oppression, fraud or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to
support such a claim.” (Grieves v. Superior Court. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d
159, 166.)¿ Further, a¿plaintiff’s “conclusory characterization of defendant’s
conduct as intentional, willful and fraudulent is a patently insufficient
statement of ‘oppression, fraud,¿or malice, express or implied,¿within the
meaning of section 3294.”¿(Brousseau v. Jarrett¿(1977) 73 Cal.App.3d
864, 872.)
The Complaint
here alleges that Defendant Iton repeatedly touched Plaintiff in a sexual
manner without her consent while she was working for Defendant Employer.
(Compl., ¶ 16.) The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff reported Defendant Iton’s misconduct
to Defendant Employer; Defendant Employer failed to prevent the harassment and,
instead, terminated Plaintiff’s employment. (Compl., ¶¶ 17-19.)
“Civil Code
section 3294, subdivision (b), provides that a corporate employer is not liable
for punitive damages based upon the acts of its employees unless the acts were
committed, authorized, or ratified by a corporate officer, director, or
managing agent.” (Powerhouse Motorsports Group, Inc. v. Yamaha Motor Corp.,
U.S.A. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 867, 885.) “Corporations are legal entities
which do not have minds capable of recklessness, wickedness, or intent to
injure or deceive. An award of punitive damages against a corporation therefore
must rest on the malice of the corporation's employees.” (Cruz v. HomeBase
(2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 160, 167.)
Here, the allegations for
misconduct against Defendant Employer are entirely conclusory and contains no
specific actions of any employee of Defendant Employer that could constitute oppression,
fraud or malice for the purposes of Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (b). The
allegations in the Complaint are insufficient to establish that ‘the advance
knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of
oppression, fraud, or malice [is] on the part of an officer, director, or
managing agent of” Defendant Employer (Civ. Code § 3294, subd.
(b).)
CONCLUSION
The motion to
strike is granted with leave to amend. The Amended Complaint shall be served
and filed on or before September 19, 2023.