Judge David A. Rosen, Case 21STCV07453 2022-08-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: David A. Rosen, Case: 21STCV07453, Date: 2022-08-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV07453 Hearing Date: August 5, 2022 Dept: E

Hearing Date: 08/05/2022 – 8:30am

Case No: 21STCV07453

Trial Date: UNSET

Case Name: JONATHAN LENOX v. TROY THOMAS MILLER, et al.

TENTATIVE RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE

[As a preliminary matter, the caption of the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) lists the causes of actions as (1) assault, (2) battery, (3) wilful[sp] misconduct, (4) negligence, (5) premises liability, and (6) negligence.

However, the body of the complaint lists the causes of actions as (1) battery, (2) assault, (3) willful misconduct, (4) negligence, (5) premises liability, and (6) negligence.

For purposes of this motion to strike, the Court will refer to the causes of action as referenced in the body of the complaint.]

Moving Party: Defendants, Troy Thomas Miller, Dakota Pictures, Inc., and Dakota North Entertainment, Inc. (“Defendants”)

Responding Party: No Opposition

Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300): ok
16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP 1005(b)): ok

Proper Address: No – As a preliminary matter, there seems to be an error in eCourt. eCourt lists Quantum Law Group/Jonathan Michael Deer as counsel for Defendant; however, on Defendants’ proof of service the attorney for Plaintiff is noted as Steven Morris, Jonathan Michael Deer, Peyman Cohan, and Quantum Law Group. Also, on eCourt, the only email address listed for Plaintiff’s counsel is jdeer@quantumlawgroup.com, and jdeer@quantumlawgroup.com is not the email address listed on Defendants’ proof of service. Additionally, this motion appears to have been served by both email and mail. Not only do the email addresses on the proof of service not match up with what eCourt lists as Plaintiff’s counsel’s email address, but the mailing address on the proof of service doesn’t match up with what eCourt lists as Plaintiff’s counsel’s mailing address. On Defendants’ proof of service, the mailing address that this motion was served on was “8383 Wilshire Blvd Ste 935, Beverly Hills, CA 90211.” However, eCourt lists the mailing address for Jonathan Michael Deer as “8383 Wilshire Blvd Ste 510, Beverly Hills, CA 90211.”

No Opposition or Reply.

RELIEF REQUESTED
Defendants move to strike the following from the SAC:

1. Page 7, paragraph 37

2. Page 7-8, paragraph 43

3. Page 9, paragraph 52

4. Page 13, Prayer for Relief, paragraph 5

PROCEDURAL
Meet and Confer
Moving party stated it met and conferred but the parties could not reach an agreement. (Decl. Camacho ¶2.)

BACKGROUND

This complaint arises from an incident in which Plaintiff, Jonathan Lenox, alleges that Defendant, Troy Thomas Miller, ran plaintiff over in an automobile.

MOTION TO STRIKE LEGAL STANDARD

The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc. § 436(a).) The court may also strike 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(b).) A motion to strike cannot be based upon the grounds that a complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, but instead is properly based on grounds of superfluous or abusive allegations, or improprieties in form or procedure. (Ferraro v. Camarlinghi (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 509, 528-29.)

The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Code. Civ. Proc. § 437; Turman v. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63 [“judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth”].)

PUNITIVE DAMAGES LEGAL STANDARD
California Civil Code section 3294 authorizes the recovery of punitive damages in non-contract cases where “the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice . . . ” (Civ. Code § 3294(a).) Punitive damages thus require more than the mere commission of a tort. (See Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 894-95.) “‘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.” (CCP § 3294(c)(1).) “‘Oppression’ means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.” (Id., § 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.” (Id., § 3294(c)(3).) Specific facts must be pleaded in support of punitive damages. (See Hillard v. A.H. Robins Co. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 374, 391-92.)

TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant attempts to argue that Plaintiff did not plead sufficient facts to support a prayer for punitive damages against Defendant Troy Miller. The Court finds this argument unavailing and unpersuasive as the Court already explained in its 4/29/2022 Minute Order.

However, if proper service and notice is shown by Movant, this motion to strike is GRANTED on other grounds. Plaintiff has failed to cure the specific defects as to which he was granted leave to amend on 4/29/2022.

As noted by Defendants, Plaintiff does not specify in any of its causes of actions as to whom Plaintiff is seeking punitive damages against. At issue here in the first three causes of action are paragraphs 37, 43, and 52.

Those three paragraphs state as follows:

MILLER’s and DOES 1 through 25’s act was done knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent in that MILLER and DOES 1 through 25 intended to harm MR. LENOX using an instrumentality that was likely to cause serious bodily injury or death or acted in complete and utter disregard of the likelihood of serious bodily injury or death, and MR. LENOX is entitled to punitive damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial.

Not only does paragraphs 37, 43, and 52 not specify which Defendants the Plaintiff seeks punitive damages from, but the prayer also does not specify which Defendants Plaintiff is seeking punitive damages from. Considering these three paragraphs and the prayer for relief in totality, it is unclear which Defendants the Plaintiff seeks punitive damages from.

The Court is not ruling that Plaintiff did or did not properly allege punitive damages against the corporate defendants, because it is unclear at this point if the Plaintiff is even seeking punitive damages against the corporate defendants.

Further, as the Defendants properly pointed out, Plaintiff uses the term “Dakota” throughout the complaint, but Plaintiff fails to specify whether the term Dakota refers to Defendant Dakota Pictures, Inc., Dakota North Entertainment, Inc., or both entities.

The Court is not ruling on whether Plaintiff had to include in its prayer for relief that Plaintiff had to specify in the prayer for relief which Defendants Plaintiff is seeking punitive damages from. Although Defendants state that in the prayer the Plaintiff must specify which Defendants it is seeking punitive damages from, Defendants offer no legal authority to support this argument. However, since each cause of action also does not specify which Defendants the Plaintiff seeks punitive damages from, the instant motion to strike is GRANTED with 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND.