Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 23STCV22636, Date: 2023-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV22636    Hearing Date: December 5, 2023    Dept: 68

Juan Centeno vs. Mrs. Gooch’s Natural Food Markets, Inc., et al., 23STCV22636

Motion to Strike

Moving Parties: Defendants Mrs. Gooch’s Natural Food Markets, Inc. and Whole Foods Market California, Inc.

Motion to Strike

            This is an employment law case in which Plaintiff Juan Centeno (Plaintiff) is alleging that Defendants Mrs. Gooch’s Natural Food Markets, Inc. and Whole Foods Market California, Inc. (Defendants) failed to provide him with disability accommodations as his employers. He also alleges several other causes of action related to his employment and termination.

            As part of his complaint, Plaintiff has made requests for punitive damages at pp. 9:1-6; 10:24-27 – 11:1-2; 15:6-11; 16:17-22; 18:9-14; and in paragraph 8 of the Prayer for Relief on p. 27. Defendants have moved to strike Plaintiff’s requests for punitive damages on the basis that Plaintiff has not pled facts supporting the requests.

            Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the complaint or any part thereof. (CCP § 435.) A motion to strike is authorized to strike any “irrelevant, false, or improper” matters, or any portion of a pleading that is “not drawn in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” (CCP § 436.)

            Punitive damages are available where a Defendant is guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud. (Civ. Code § 3294(a).) For corporate defendants, “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 does not allege any facts indicating that Defendants engaged in malice, oppression, or fraud. Instead, Plaintiff just makes conclusory allegations regarding the punitive damages without any specifics:

“Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that the employees, officers, directors, and/or managing agents of Defendants acted with malice and oppression, as their unlawful acts were carried out with full knowledge of the extreme risk of injury, involved, and with willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights. They also acted fraudulently, as they willfully concealed the fact that Plaintiff’s employment rights were being violated, with the intent to deprive Plaintiff of employment benefits. Accordingly, an award of punitive damages is warranted.”

(See Comp., p. 9:1-6, ¶ 38.) Plaintiff does not say who in the corporation committed the allegedly fraudulent acts. Allegations of fraud require specificity. Plaintiff has also not sufficiently alleged that Defendants acted with malice and oppression; instead, Plaintiff has just stated vague generalities. Plaintiff also does not allege whether it was an officer, director, or managing agent who was responsible for the alleged acts.

            Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to strike.

Order

            Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s requests for punitive damages from pp. 9:1-6; 10:24-27 – 11:1-2; 15:6-11; 16:17-22; 18:9-14; and in paragraph 8 of the Prayer for Relief on p. 27 is GRANTED.