Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV01394, Date: 2024-10-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV01394    Hearing Date: October 23, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Murphy v. LAUSD, Case no. 24SMCV01394

Hearing date October 23, 2024

Defendants’ Motion to Strike Punitive Damages

Minor plaintiff alleges assault by a school behavioral aid and sues defendants Los Angeles School District, school principal Salvador, assistant principal Smith and behaviorist Searcy-Moore for assault, battery, IIED, NIED, negligent supervision, false imprisonment and negligence. Individual defendants Salvador, Smith and Searcy-Moore move to strike punitive damages, arguing they improper as against government officials acting in their official capacities.

Punitive damages are allowable only when plaintiff proves defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud or malice. Cal. Civ. Code §3294(a).

Plaintiff asserts defendants Salvador, Smith and Searcy-Moore are being sued in both their official and individual capacities but fails to allege any facts demonstrating defendants were acting in a capacity outside their official roles. Plaintiff does not allege defendants’ actions occurred off school property or outside school hours. Plaintiff alleges moving defendants failed to properly document the alleged assault, unnecessarily involved law enforcement and CPS, failed to supervise the behavioral aide and failed to maintain proper records. Complaint paras. 15, 32-39, 47. Plaintiff’s allegations do not show defendants acted in a capacity outside their roles as school administrators and employees.

Defendants argue punitive damages are not recoverable against government officials acting within the scope of their employment. Gov. Code §818 provides “[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 the defendant.” Defendant cites Mitchell v. Dupnik (9th Cir. 1996) 75 F.3d 517, 527, which held in part that an award of punitive damages against a sheriff acting in his official capacity was an assessment against the county which was immune from such damages. Id.

Plaintiff argues California law allows punitive damages against public employees who act with reckless disregard or willful misconduct in their individual capacities. Plaintiff attempts to substantiate this argument with citations the court finds inapplicable to the instant motion, or which the court could not find.

Plaintiff cites Gonzalez v. City of San Jose (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 1127, 1136 to assert “punitive damages are appropriate when a public employee’s conduct goes beyond mere negligence and rises to deliberate indifference or recklessness.” Defendant notes, and the court agrees, that Gonzalez does not address punitive damages; it addressed issues of government preemption and landowner duties. Plaintiff also cites Mitchell, arguing the court affirmed that public employees are not immune from punitive damages when acting with malice or oppression; Mitchell actually held an award of punitive damages on an otherwise successful §1983 claim was inappropriate as a matter of law. Id. at 527.

Plaintiff cites Johnson v. Campbell (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1170, arguing the court upheld punitive damages where a defendant’s actions showed a conscious disregard for the plaintiff’s rights. Neither the court nor defendants were able to locate Johnson as cited. The case at 127 Cal.App.4th 1160 in not the one cited by plaintiff.

Plaintiff failed to establish that punitive damages are appropriately awarded against government officials acting in their official capacity. Thus, the court need not reach the issue of whether any individual defendant acted with fraud, oppression or malice. The motion to strike punitive damages (para. 106 of the prayer at p. 15:26) is GRANTED.