Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 22SMCV00098, Date: 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV00098    Hearing Date: May 4, 2023    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Miller v. Oto Development LLC et. al. 22SMCV00098

Hearing Date May 4, 2023

Defendant Palmetto Hospitality’s Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint and Motion to Strike Punitive Damages

Plaintiff Miller, who is disabled and uses an electric wheelchair, stayed for six months in a handicap accessible room at the Hampton Inn in Santa Monica. She alleges a door fell, striking her and pinning her in a doorway. She alleges the hotel denied her requests for reasonable accommodations, and the hotel and its amenities were inaccessible and/or dangerous.

On February 3, 2023 the court overruled a demurrer to Miller’s cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and sustained a demurrer to Miller’s cause of action for false imprisonment with leave to amend. Defendants Palmetto Hospitality and Interstate Management demur to the second amended complaint.

Demurrer -- False Imprisonment

A cause of action for false imprisonment is an intentional tort but can result from negligence. Bocanegra v. Jakubowski (2015) 241 Cal.App.4^th 848, 855. This can occur when, for example, a store owner honestly but mistakenly detains a customer the employee believes is a shoplifter, or if a police officer wrongly but honestly prolongs an imprisonment. Id. The detention itself must be intentional, but the justification for the detention can be negligent. Id. Under California law, “every person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his acts.” Gomez v. Acquistapace (1996) 50 Cal.App.740, 746.

Miller alleges Palmetto blocked egress from her room by leaving housekeeping carts in the hallway and prevented her from leaving the premises by blocking access to her van.

Palmetto argues Miller has not alleged intent or injury. Miller repeatedly complained to management and staff about the hall being blocked by housekeeping carts. SAC ¶99. Miller alleged defendants knew their conduct would probably result in her confinement but continued to engage in the conduct. Under the facts alleged, Miller’s confinement was the “natural and probable consequence” of failing to prevent housekeeping carts from blocking the hallway. Miller alleged Palmetto intended to confine her. Miller adequately alleged injury. Inability to leave her room is a cognizable harm, as is the emotional distress allegedly suffered because of her confinement. Id. ¶104. OVERRULED.

Motion to Strike Punitive Damages

Palmetto moves to strike punitive damages. Miller alleges she regularly informed hotel management and staff she had been trapped in her room, but the hotel did nothing to remedy the issue. Conduct demonstrating a reckless disregard for the safety of others can support a claim for punitive damages. Peterson v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 147, 162-163. This conduct, if proven, would indicate a reckless disregard for Miller’s safety, justifying punitive damages.

Palmetto alleges plaintiff failed to allege the “oppression fraud or malice [was] perpetrated, authorized, or knowingly ratified by an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation.” Cal. Civ. Code §3294(b). Miller alleges she told hotel managers about the situation, but they took no steps to remedy it. This would show management employees ratified the conduct. DENIED.