Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22STCV19894, Date: 2023-02-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV19894    Hearing Date: February 15, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant Sahni Entreprises's Motion to Strike

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

BACKGROUND

On June 17, 2022, Plaintiff Damon Williams (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Ronald Washington (“Washington”), Action Patrol Services, Inc. (“APS”), 7-Eleven #18534C (“7-Eleven”) and Sahni Enterprises (“Sahni”) for negligence, premises liability, battery and negligent hiring and supervision.

On August 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed the FAC.

On September 26, 2022, Washington and APS filed an answer.

On November 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed the SAC.

On January 18, 2023, Sahni filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants APD and Washington for equitable indemnity, apportionment of fault and express indemnity.

On January 18, 2023, Sahni filed a Motion to Strike to be heard on February 15, 2023. On February 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On February 3, 2023, Sahni filed a reply.

Trial is currently scheduled for December 15, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Sahni requests the Court strike the request for punitive damages stemming from the third cause of action for battery.

Plaintiff requests the Court deny the motion to strike.

LEGAL STANDARD

Any party, within the time allowed to response to a pleading, may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part of that pleading. (CCP § 435(b).) 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 asserted 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." (CCP § 436.) The Court's authority to strike improper pleadings includes the power to strike those pleadings that are "not filed in conformity with its prior ruling." (Janis v. California State Lottery Com (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 824, 829.)

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. (Coll. Hosp., 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 (a).) “Malice is defined in the statute as conduct 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." (Coll. Hosp., Inc., supra, 8 Cal. 4th at 725 [examining Civ. Code § 3294(c)(1)].)

“[A] principal who personally engages in no misconduct may be vicariously liable for the tortious act committed by an agent within the course and scope of the agency. [Citation.] Agency is the relationship which results from the manifestation of consent by one person to another that the other shall act on his behalf and subject to his control, and consent by the other so to act . . . .[Citation.] While the existence of an agency relationship is ‘typically a question of fact, when ‘“the evidence is susceptible of but a single inference,”’ summary judgment may be appropriate.” (Barenborg v. Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 70, 85.)

“It is a settled rule of the law of agency that a principal is responsible to third persons for the ordinary contracts and obligations of his agent with third persons made in the course of the business of the agency and within the scope of the agent’s powers as such, although made in the name of the agent and not purporting to be other than his own personal obligation or contract.” (Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1178.)

“[A]n employer may be liable for an employee’s act where the employer . . . subsequently ratified an originally unauthorized tort. [Citations.] The failure to discharge an employee who has committed misconduct may be evidence of ratification. [Citation.] The theory of ratification is generally applied where an employer fails to investigate or respond to charges that an employee committed an intentional tort, such as assault or battery. [Citations.] Whether an employer has ratified an employee’s conduct is generally a factual question. [Citation.]” (Ventura v. ABM Industries Inc. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 258, 272.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Plaintiff was shopping at the subject 7-Eleven when he was approached by security guard Washington, who was on felony parole at the time of the incident; Washington said something to Plaintiff, which Plaintiff did not hear. Washington then swung a flashlight or taser type device at Plaintiff, knocking him unconscious. The Complaint specifically alleges that Washington was employed by APS as an independent contractor. Sahni is identified as the franchisor of the subject 7-Eleven. Washington is identified as an agent of Sahni.

The Court evaluates the potential for punitive damages in an agent/principal relationship under the same framework as an employee/employer relationship. Under CCP §3294, an employer shall not be liable for punitive damages based on the acts of an employee unless the employer either had advanced knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed them with conscious disregard for the safety of others or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct, or was personally guilty of fraud, oppression, or malice. Plaintiff’s complaint makes no such allegations.   

CONCLUSION

Defendant Sahni Entreprises's Motion to Strike is GRANTED.  Plaintiff has 21 days leave to amend.

            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.