Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr., Case: 23SMCV02467, Date: 2023-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV02467    Hearing Date: August 31, 2023    Dept: 205

 

 

 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

JANE DOE,   

 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al.,   

 

Defendants. 

 

  Case No.:  23SMCV02467 

  

  Hearing Date:  August 31, 2023 

  [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: 

  DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS  

  ANGELES’ MOTION TO STRIKE  

  PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM 

 

 

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant County of Los Angeles (erroneously sued as Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department) 

 

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Jane Doe 

 

BACKGROUND 

This case arises out of an alleged assault and batteryPlaintiff Jane Doe alleges that she was sexually assaulted and battered by two Los Angeles Sheriff’s deputies during the course of her arrest at The Abbey Food & Bar in West Hollywood.  Plaintiff alleges the deputies unclasped her bra, groped her breasts and asked her to remove her underwear in order to view her vagina.   

The operative complaint alleges claims for (1) sexual battery, (2) sexual assault, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (4) battery by law enforcement officer.  The complaint also seeks punitive damages against the County of Los Angeles.    

 

This hearing is on the County’s motion to strike all references to punitive damages in the complaint.  The County argues that punitive damages are not recoverable against public entities under Gov’t Code § 818.     

LEGAL STANDARD 

The court may, upon 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, subd. (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, subd. (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.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.)  The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)  The adequacy of a claim for punitive damages may be tested by a motion to strike.  (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 164.) 

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Vaccaro v. Kaiman (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 761, 768 (“When the defect which justifies striking a complaint is capable of cure, the court should allow leave to amend.”).)  The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) 

DISCUSSION 

The County moves to strike Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages because the damages are not recoverable against a public entity.  The Court agrees.    

Govt Code § 818 states: “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, a public entity is not liable for damages awarded under Section 3294 of the Civil Code or other damages imposed primarily for the sake of example and by way of punishing defendant.”  Here, there is no dispute the County is a “public entity” as defined under Gov. Code § 811.2.  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages against the County must fail.  As there is no reasonable possibility of successful amendment given the statutory bar, the Court grants the motion to strike without leave to amend.   

Plaintiffs argue they may seek punitive damages against the officers and the County would then owe statutory indemnity obligations to the officers.  Whatever the merits of this argument, it does not alter the fact that Plaintiffs cannot pursue a direct claim of punitive damages against the County.  Also, while Plaintiffs seek leave to amend, they do not explain how any amendment could cure the statutory bar against seeking punitive damages from a public entity.     

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the County’s motion to strike all references to punitive damages in the Complaint, without leave to amend.  Specifically, the Court strikes page 5, lines 14-15; page 6, lines 6-7; page 7, lines 3-4; page 7, lines 18-19, and page 8, line 1.   

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: August 31, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court