Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV04923, Date: 2024-03-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV04923    Hearing Date: March 8, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Joseph Farahzad v. JMA Plastering Inc. et al., Case No. 23SMCV04923

Hearing Date March 8, 2024

Defendants JMA Plastering Inc. dba JMA Construction and Jose Israel Andres-Molina’s Motion to Strike Punitive Damages

In this construction defect case plaintiff alleges defendants failed to properly perform lathing and plastering work and falsely represented that they held the required license. Defendants move to strike the request for punitive damages.

Punitive damages are allowable when a plaintiff proves defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice. Cal. Civ. Code §3294(a). Facts giving rise to a claim for punitive damages must be pleaded specifically – vague or conclusory allegations are insufficient. G.D. Searle & Company v. Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 29.

Defendants argue plaintiff has not specifically alleged facts giving rise to a right to recover punitive damages. The complaint alleges a cause of action for intentional misrepresentation, stating how, when, why and by what means the alleged fraudulent statements were made. Complaint ¶¶42-44. A properly pleaded fraud claim is sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages upon a motion to strike. DENIED.