Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 24STCV01615, Date: 2025-01-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV01615    Hearing Date: January 6, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On January 19, 2024, Plaintiff Fernando Barajas-Salomon filed this product liability action against various defendants. Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint on July 30, 2024, asserting (1) negligence, (2) products liability – failure to warn, (3) products liability – design defect, (4) fraudulent concealment, (5) breach of implied warranties, and (6) loss of consortium.

            According to the complaint, from 2005 to 2023, Plaintiff worked as a cutter, fabricator and/or installer of Defendants’ stone products. (SAC ¶¶ 166-170.) As a result of this work, Plaintiff came into contact with “inherently hazardous stone products manufactured, imported, supplied, distributed, contracted, and/or brokered, by the named Defendants and Does 1-100.” (Id., ¶ 171.) Specifically, Plaintiff was “exposed to and inhaled stone dust containing silica and other toxins and carcinogens.” (Ibid.) Plaintiff allegedly developed lung disease and is at increased risk of developing other silica-related diseases. (Id., ¶ 172.) Plaintiff alleges that he “has had to receive substantial medical treatment, including hospitalizations and surgeries, and will require lung transplantation.” (Id., ¶ 173.)

            On November 6, 2024, Defendant Quartz Max Inc. filed the instant motion to strike against the SAC. Plaintiff filed his opposition on December 20, 2024.

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 of that pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b).) The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike (1) any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading and (2) 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. (Id., § 436.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Id., § 437.)

MEET AND CONFER

Before filing a demurrer or a motion to strike, the demurring or moving party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading demurred to or the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purposes of determining whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of an amended pleading that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.41, 435.5.) The Court notes that Defendant has complied with the meet and confer requirement. (See Akhavan Decl.)

DISCUSSION

            “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.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) “‘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.” (Id., subd. (c)(1).) “‘Oppression’ means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.” (Id., subd. (c)(2).) Fraud is “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.” (Id., subd. (c)(3).)

            Defendant has not demurred to the fraudulent concealment claim. Fraud is an independent basis for punitive damages. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant knew of the hazardous nature of its products for an extended period of time yet concealed the nature and extent of such hazards. (See, e.g., SAC ¶¶ 1227, 1233-1255.) Even if this did not constitute fraud, it would constitute a conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights and safety. Therefore, the complaint adequately pleads malice, oppression, and fraud.

Plaintiff has also alleged that the alleged concealment was ratified by Defendant’s corporate officers and managers. (SAC ¶ 1181.) This is sufficient for pleading purposes. The precise identities of Defendant’s managing agents may be ascertained in discovery.

In sum, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged facts supporting the prayer for punitive damages.      

CONCLUSION

            Defendant Quartz Max Inc.’s motion to strike is DENIED.