Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 24PSCV03686, Date: 2025-05-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV03686    Hearing Date: May 21, 2025    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

DEFENDANTS ANMOD K. VIG, SUSHMA VIG’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT is GRANTED with leave to amend as Plaintiff has not alleged specific facts that moving Defendants acted in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s safety/rights. (A proposed order has been filed.)

Background

This is a medical malpractice case. Plaintiff SUSANA SANCHEZ alleges the following against Defendants XOCHITL PIERCE (“XOCHITL”), an individual; DESTINY PIERCE (“Destiny”), an individual; ELEVATE CUPPING, a business entity form unknown dba ELEVATE WELLNESS; ABNASH C. KAUSHAL, Trustee of The Abnash & Indu Kaushal Living Trust 1992, INDU

KAUSHAL, Trustee of The Abnash & Indu Kaushal Living Trust 1992, ABNASH C. KAUSHAL, an individual, INDU

KAUSHAL, an individual; ANMOD K. VIG, an individual, and SUSHMA VIG (“collectively, “Owners”): On August 11, 2023, Plaintiff attended a massage therapy session with XOCHITL, an unlicensed massage therapist. During the cupping procedure, instead of grabbing the intended substance, Xochitl “displayed reckless indifference” by grabbing alcohol, which led to severe burns, requiring Plaintiff to be transferred to a burn unit for treatment. (Destiny is Xochitl’s mother who co-runs the business, and the Owners own the property wherein the business operates; Plaintiff alleges that the Owners owed a duty to provide a safe environment for the activities taking place on their property including ensuring that tenants or business operators comply with legal and safety standards.)

On December 9, 2024, Xochitl filed an answer (in pro per).

On December 10, 2024, Destiny filed an answer (in pro per).

On March 26, 2025, the Owners filed the instant motion to strike.

On April 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed her opposition.

On May 7, 2025, the Owners filed their reply.

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 Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1).) A court may “[s]trike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a).) A court may “[s]trike 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, subd. (b).)

In order to state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a complaint must set forth the elements as stated in the general punitive damage statute, Civil Code section 3294. (College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 721.) These statutory elements include allegations that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice.¿(Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).)¿¿¿ 

Discussion[1]

According to the complaint, Plaintiff seeks punitive damages as to Defendants because their permitting of an unlawful activity on their property “demonstrates a gross departure from the standard of care in similar circumstances. This reflects an attitude of indifference to the rights and safety of others, warranting punitive damages.” The Owners (hereinafter, “Defendants”), move to strike punitive damages from the complaint on the grounds that the complaint fails to set forth specific facts to show that they consciously disregarded the rights and safety of Plaintiff.

The court agrees with Defendants.

In order to survive a motion to strike an allegation of punitive damages, the ultimate facts showing an entitlement to such relief must be pled by a plaintiff.” (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255, emphasis added; see also Hillard v. A.H. Robins Co. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 374, 391-392 [specific facts must be pled in support of punitive damages.].) California Civil Code, Section 3294 authorizes punitive damages upon a showing of malice, fraud, or oppression. Malice is defined as either “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 also College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704.) “Specific facts must be pled in support of punitive damages. (Hillard v. A.H. Robins Co. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 374, 391-392.)  

Here, however, Plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts to support their punitive damage claim for any cause of action. To the extent that Plaintiff cites to Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1379, that case is inapposite.[2] In that case, “[t]he sole issue [was] whether the FEHA grants the [Fair Employment and Housing Commission] authority to award punitive damages,” an issue which turned exclusively on the meaning of section 12970, which is not at issue here. (Id. at p. 1385.)

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, as Plaintiff has not pled the ultimate, specific facts that Defendants’ conduct in failing to ensure proper safety measures by allowing an unlicensed practitioner to perform a dangerous procedure qualifies as conscious disregard, the motion is GRANTED with leave to amend.