Judge Cynthia A Freeland, Case Number: 37-2023-00043442-CU-PO-NC, Date: 2024-06-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Cynthia A Freeland, Case: 37-2023-00043442-CU-PO-NC, Date: 2024-06-21 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 20, 2024

06/21/2024 01:30:00 PM N-27 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Cynthia A. Freeland

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited PI/PD/WD - Other Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2023-00043442-CU-PO-NC BARTELS VS CARLSBAD STRAWBERRY COMPANY INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Strike, 03/13/2024

Defendant Carlsbad Strawberry Company, Inc. ('Defendant')'s motion to strike portions of Plaintiff William Keith Bartels ('Plaintiff')'s Complaint is granted.

California Code of Civil Procedure � 436 provides that '[t]he 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.' Cal. Code Civ. P. �� 436(a)-(b). In ruling on a motion to strike, courts do not read allegations in isolation. See Perkins v. Sup. Ct. (1981) 117 Cal. App. 3d 1, 6. '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.' Clauson v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 1253, 1255. The grounds for a motion to strike must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. See Cal. Code Civ. P. � 437(a).

'In order to state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a complaint must set forth the elements as stated in the general punitive damages statute, Civil Code section 3294.' Turman v. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal. App. 4th 53, 63. CC � 3294 allows a plaintiff to recover punitive damages '[i]n 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.' Cal. Civ. Code � 3294(a). For purposes of awarding punitive damages, ''[m]alice' 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.' Cal. Civ. Code � 3294(c)(1). ''Oppression' means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.' Cal. Civ. Code � 3294(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.' Cal. Civ. Code � 3294(c)(3). 'Despicable conduct' is conduct that is so mean, vile, base, or contemptible that it would be looked down upon and despised by reasonable people. See CACI 3940.

Such conduct has been described as having 'the character of outrage frequently associated with crime.' Scott v. Phoenix Schools, Inc. (2009) 175 Cal. App. 4th 702, 715.

The court construes Plaintiff's lack of opposition as a concession of the motion's merits. See San Diego Rules of Court, Rule 2.1.19.B. In addition, the court finds that the Complaint fails to plead the ultimate facts with the requisite specificity demonstrating that Defendant's conduct, if ultimately proven by clear and convincing evidence, could give rise to the imposition of punitive damages. See Brousseau v. Jarrett Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3107684 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: BARTELS VS CARLSBAD STRAWBERRY COMPANY INC 37-2023-00043442-CU-PO-NC (1977) 73 Cal. App. 3d 864, 872; Hillard v. A.H. Robins Co. (1983) 148 Cal. App. 3d 374, 391-392. The Complaint, which has been submitted on Judicial Council of California Form PLD-PI-001 [Rev. January 1, 2007], alleges that on October 9, 2021, Plaintiff attended Defendant's 'pumpkin patch' festivities, which event included the use of an 'apple cannon' to shoot apples via an air compression device.

Plaintiff contends that the apple cannon was loud and concussive, yet Defendant failed to offer Plaintiff ear protection or warn of potential hearing damage. As a result of Defendant's negligent operation of the apple cannon, Plaintiff suffered hearing loss and vertigo symptoms. The foregoing is insufficient to state a claim for punitive damages. To start, and notably, the Complaint alleges a single cause of action for general negligence. Under California law, 'routine negligent or even reckless disobedience of [the] laws [does] not justify an award of punitive damages.' Taylor v. Sup. Ct. (1979) 24 Cal. 3d 890, 899-900. See also Colombo v. BRP US Inc. (2014) 230 Cal. App. 4th 1442, 1486, fn. 8 ('California does not recognize punitive damages for conduct that is grossly negligent or reckless.'); Egan v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co. (1979) 24 Cal. 3d 809, 828 (noting that punitive damages should be awarded 'only in the most outrageous cases' and noting that to be awarded, the 'act complained of must not only be willful, in the sense of intentional, but it must be accompanied by some aggravating circumstance amounting to malice.').

Furthermore, the Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts demonstrating that Defendant's conduct satisfies the statutory definitions of malice and/or oppression under California Civil Code � 3294. More specifically, the Complaint fails to allege that Defendant, in failing to warn Plaintiff of the apple cannon's decibel level or failing to provide Plaintiff with protective gear, did so intending to injure Plaintiff or with a conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights. Nor has Plaintiff alleged sufficiently that Defendant's conduct is so despicable that it would be looked down upon and despised by reasonable people.

Accordingly, the court grants the motion to strike without leave to amend as Plaintiff, by failing to oppose the motion, has not met his burden of demonstrating a reasonable possibility that the foregoing deficiencies can be cured by amendment. See Grieves v. Sup. Ct. (1984) 157 Cal. App. 3d 159, 168; Johnson v. County of Los Angeles (1983) 143 Cal. App. 3d 298, 306 (the plaintiff bears the burden of showing in what manner he or she can amend his or her pleading and how the amendment will change the legal effect of his or her pleading).

In light of the foregoing, the court grants the motion and strikes Plaintiff's request for punitive damages from the Complaint without leave to amend.

This is the tentative ruling for the hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, June 21, 2024. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the court as of June 21, 2024. If the parties are satisfied with the court's tentative ruling or do not otherwise wish to argue the motion, they are encouraged to give notice to the court and each other of their intention not to appear, though this notice is not required.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3107684