Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 22STCV20688, Date: 2022-12-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV20688 Hearing Date: December 5, 2022 Dept: 68
Ricardo Renteria vs. UKA’s Big Saver Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 22STCV20688
MOTION: Motion to Strike Punitive Damage Allegations
Factual
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint alleges three causes of action for (1) defamation, (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (3) negligence against moving party UKA’s Big Saver Foods, Inc. These causes of action arise out of an incident at one of Defendant’s stores. During this alleged incident, a store security guard accused Plaintiff of stealing items that Plaintiff had just bought. Plaintiff is requesting is punitive damages.
Procedural
This action was originally filed by Plaintiff on June 24, 2022. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on October 6, 2022. Defendant filed the Motion to Strike that is now before the Court on November 3, 2022. Plaintiff filed his opposition on November 14, 2022. Defendant filed its reply on November 23, 2022.
MOVING PARTY’S GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION TO STRIKE
Defendant requests that certain references to punitive damages and statements that Defendant acted with malice be stricken from Plaintiff’s complaint. They are:
Complaint, ¶31, page 6, lines 18-21:
“The aforementioned actions of the DEFENDANTS was [sic] done with malice,
fraud, or oppression, and in reckless disregard of the PLAINTIFFS [sic] rights under the
laws of the state of California entitling the PLAINTIFF to recover punitive or exemplary
damages in such an amount as the trier of fact in this action deems appropriate.”
Complaint, ¶ 28, page 6, lines 13-16:
“The aforementioned actions of the DEFENDANTS was [sic] done with malice,
fraud, or oppression, and in reckless disregard of the PLAINTIFFS [sic] rights under the
laws of the state of California entitling the PLAINTIFF to recover punitive or exemplary
damages in such an amount as the trier of fact in this action deems appropriate.”
Plaintiff’s Prayer for Relief:
Complaint, Prayer Item No. 3, page 8, line10:
“3. For punitive damages in accordance to proof at trial;”
ANALYSIS
The Motion to Strike
The Code of Civil Procedure Section 435(b)(1) provides that “[a]ny 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 thereof....” 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. (Id., § 436(b).) The grounds for a motion to strike are that the pleading has irrelevant, false or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws. (Id. § 436.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Id. § 437.)
Punitive Damages
Defendant requests that the Court strike Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages (Prayer Item No. 3, p. 8, line 10) and references that Defendant acted with malice (¶ 31, p. 6, lines 18-21; and ¶ 28, p. 6, lines 13-16) from the Complaint.
Punitive damages are only awarded in a narrow set of circumstances where a defendant intends to cause harm. (Woolstrum v. Mailoux (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 10 [quoting Nolin v. National Convenience Stores, Inc. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 279, 286].) Thus, a claim for punitive damages can be stricken if it fails to provide facts sufficient to support allegations of intent. (Turman v. Turning Point of Cent. Cal., Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.) Punitive damages claims are typically improper in a negligence claim because negligence is, by its very definition, unintentional. (Woolstrum, supra, 141 Cal.App.3d Supp. at p. 10 (quoting Prosser, Law of Torts (4th ed. 1971) p. 9).)
To sufficiently plead a claim for punitive damages pursuant to Civil Code § 3294, a plaintiff must satisfy circumstances of "malice, oppression, or fraud," supported by facts alleged with sufficient particularity. (G.D. Searle & Co. v. Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 29.) These allegations are held to a heightened pleading standard: a plaintiff may not state a mere conclusion of law to support a cause of action. (Perkins v. Sup. Ct. (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6.) More importantly, the plaintiff may not simply "plead . . . a claim for damages in the language authorizing such damages." (Id.) While some conclusory statements may be permitted, they must make sense in the context of the Complaint taken as a whole. (Id.)
Additionally, when it is an employer being sued for the alleged acts of an employee, the following applies when determining if punitive damages may be sought:
“An employer shall not be liable for damages pursuant to subdivision (a), based upon acts of an employee of the employer, unless the employer had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. With respect to a corporate employer, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation.” (Civ. Code § 3294(b).)
Plaintiff has not pleaded facts sufficient to show that Defendant, as a corporate employer, has liability pursuant to the standard set forth in Civil Code § 3294. As such, Plaintiff cannot maintain a claim for punitive damages against Defendant.
Accordingly, the references to punitive damages, and references that Defendant acted with malice, in Plaintiff’s complaint shall be stricken from the complaint. Defendant’s motion to strike is GRANTED with leave to amend.
Grant the motion to strike in its entirety with leave to amend.