Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 23STCV04361, Date: 2023-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV04361    Hearing Date: October 24, 2023    Dept: 14

Instant Motion

Defendant Anny now moves this court for an order striking the punitive damages allegations and the prayer for injunctive relief.

Decision

            The motion is DENIED. Defendant Anny is to file her Answer within 10 days.

Governing Statutes

            Civil Code § 3294 provides in relevant part as follows:

“(a) In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.

(b) 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.

(c) As used in this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) “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.

(2) “Oppression” means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.

(3) “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.”

            Code of Civil Procedure § 526 provides in relevant part:

            “(a) An injunction may be granted in the following cases:

(1) When it appears by the complaint that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded, and the relief, or any part thereof, consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act complained of, either for a limited period or perpetually.

(2) When it appears by the complaint or affidavits that the commission or continuance of some act during the litigation would produce waste, or great or irreparable injury, to a party to the action.

(3) When it appears, during the litigation, that a party to the action is doing, or threatens, or is about to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act in violation of the rights of another party to the action respecting the subject of the action, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.

(4) When pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate relief.

(5) Where it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the amount of compensation which would afford adequate relief.

(6) Where the restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.

(7) Where the obligation arises from a trust.”

Discussion

Where a plaintiff has properly pled intentional behavior in a habitability case, punitive damages are available. See Civil Code § 3294(a) and (c)(1); Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 920. The availability of punitive damages in this case is better left for a summary adjudication motion or a trial.

Likewise, the availability of an injunction in this case cannot be decided at the pleading stage. No injunction is being ordered at this time, and none will be ordered without the presentation of evidence. But by the same token, the court will not exclude the possibility without seeing some evidence and developing a factual record.

Conclusion

            It is premature to raise these issues on this motion. The motion is therefore DENIED. Defendant Anny is to file her Answer within 10 days.

Decision

The motion is DENIED.

(3)        Normandie Demurrer

            Defendants Normandie and Jamison, joined by Defendant Vine, now demur, per Code of Civil Procedure §§ 430.10(e)-(f), to the third and sixth causes of action on the grounds that the FAC fails to state facts sufficient to support those claims and is uncertain.

Decision

The demurrer to the third cause of action is SUSTAINED, without leave to amend, for the reasons given in connection with the demurrer above.

The demurrer to the sixth cause of action is OVERRULED, for the reasons given in connection with the demurrer above.

Defendants to answer within 15 days.

(4)       Normanie Motion to Strike

            Defendants Normandie and Jamison, joined by Defendant Vine now moves this court, per Code of Civil Procedure §§ 435 and 436, for an order striking the punitive damages allegations against them.

Decision

            The motion is DENIED.

            Although Plaintiffs will be required to prove the involvement of an “officer, director, or managing agent” of the defendant corporations, the court must account for the fact that their ability to plead such a person’s specific involvement ab initio is limited. See Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4^th 531, 549-550. “When the plaintiff alleges an intentional wrong, a prayer for exemplary damage may be supported by pleading that the wrong was committed willfully or with a design to injure.” G.D. Searle & Co. v. Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 29. That is what we have here. The availability of punitive damages in this case is better left for a summary adjudication motion or a trial.