Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22STCV04701, Date: 2022-10-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV04701    Hearing Date: October 5, 2022    Dept: 28

Defendants Ikea U.S. Retail, LLC, Ikea Property, Inc. and Ikea U.S. West, Inc.’s Motion to Strike

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On February 7, 2022, Plaintiffs Emma Silva (“Emma”), Elizabeth Silva (“Elizabeth”) and Josue Silva (“Josua”) filed this action against Defendants Ikea U.S. Retail, LLC (“Ikea Retail”), Ikea Property, Inc. (“Ikea Property”) and Ikea U.S. West, Inc. (“Ikea West”) for premises liability, negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

On August 31, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion to Strike to be heard on October 5, 2022. On September 21, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On September 28, 2022, Defendants filed a reply.

Trial is currently set for August 7, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendants request the Court strike all mentions of general damages “in excess of...” a numerical amount, as well as the request for prejudgment interest.

Plaintiffs request the Court deny the motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 430.10 states: “The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds: (a) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading; (b) The person who filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to sue; (c) There is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action; (d) There is a defect or misjoinder of parties; (e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; (f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, “uncertain” includes ambiguous and unintelligible; and (g) In an action founded upon a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct.”

Under California Civil Code §3287(a), a person who is entitled to recover damages certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation...is entitled also to recover interest thereon from that day.

CCP §425.10(b) provides that when an action is brought to recover damages for personal injury, the amount demanded shall not be stated.

DISCUSSION

Request for Specific Numeral Values

Under CCP §425.10(b), the amount demanded in damages is not to be stated for a complaint for personal injury. Plaintiff has not stated a specific amount—Plaintiff has merely laid basic foundation for why this is an unlimited case, as opposed to a limited civil case. The Court denies the motion as to the request to strike the statements containing “in excess of...”.

Prejudgment Interest

Defendants state that Plaintiffs are not entitled to prejudgment interest because the Complaint fails to allege the breach of an obligation not arising from contract or a case of fraud, malice or oppression. This is an inaccurate statement of law. Civil Code §3287(a) provides that Plaintiff may be entitled to recover prejudgment interest so long as there are damages capable of being made certain by calculation. Plaintiffs’ complaint requests special damages consisting of “hospital, medical, professional and incidental expenses...” which would meet the requirements. The Court denies the motion as to the request to strike prejudgment interest.

CONCLUSION

Defendants Ikea U.S. Retail, LLC, Ikea Property, Inc. and Ikea U.S. West, Inc.’s Motion to Strike is DENIED.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.