Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV03285, Date: 2024-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV03285    Hearing Date: November 21, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Assil v. Whole Foods Market California, Inc., Case no. 24SMCV03285

Hearing date November 21, 2024

Defendant Berlin Packaging’s Motion to Strike Punitive Damages

Plaintiff Assil sues Whole Foods Market California, Inc., Sol-Ti, Inc. and Berlin Packaging LLC for injuries sustained when a bottle of “SuperAde” beverage manufactured and sold by defendants exploded in her hand. Defendant Berlin Packaging moves to strike the request for punitive damages.

Punitive damages are allowable only when plaintiff proves 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. Conclusory requests for punitive damages without factual support are subject to a motion to strike. E.g., Cyrus v. Haveson (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 306, 316-317; Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 164. Recklessness or negligence, even gross negligence, are insufficient to support an award of punitive damage – carelessness or ignorance are not enough. Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 82, 88. On a motion to strike, the allegations in a pleading must be treated as true. E.g., Clauson v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.

Defendant argues plaintiff fails to satisfy the pleading standard for punitive damages. For punitive damages to be awarded in a product liability action, it must be shown that defendant “placed a product on the market in conscious disregard of the safety of consumers and others.” Ehrhardt v. Brunswick, Inc. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 734, 741. To seek punitive damages based on a conscious disregard of the safety of others, plaintiff must allege facts showing defendant was “aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his conduct, and that he willfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences.” Butte Fire Cases (2018) 24 Cal. App. 5th 1150, 1159.

Plaintiff alleges: (1) “defendant designed and manufactured the bottle, safety mechanism, cap, seal, labels, and other packaging material” (compl., para. 10); (2) “defendant transported, stored, and/or maintained the bottle prior to defendant Whole Foods taking possession of it” (Id., para. 11); (3) “defendant knew and/or should have known that the bottle was dangerous for use, yet still negligently allowed it to be placed into the stream of commerce. As a result of said conduct, the bottle was not appropriate for use and the purposes for which it was intended, and it was likely to injure people. The unreasonable and dangerous conditions created by the conduct of defendant were not made known to plaintiff and no warnings or inadequate warnings were provided by defendant” (Id., para 29); (4) the product “was unreasonably dangerous because its use carried with it the significantly high risk of exploding, a danger that has been confirmed and known to defendants,” (Id., para. 37); and (5) “as a legal, direct, and proximate result of defendant willfully and deliberately and with a conscious disregard of the safety of the public placed said product on the market without remedying or warning of the known defects in spite of and without making known the aforesaid knowledge gained from their research and testing. This conscious disregard for safety constitutes malice, oppression, and fraud under California Civil Code §3294, entitling plaintiff to punitive damages.” (Id., para 42).

Plaintiff sufficiently alleged defendant knew or should have known the dangers posed by the bottle as a result of defendant’s internal testing. Compl. paras. 23, 37, 42 and 45. Plaintiff further alleged defendant failed to avoid the consequences of those dangers by placing the bottle in the stream of commerce without adequate warnings. Compl. para. 42. This is sufficient to survive a motion to strike under Butte, supra.

Defendant argues where punitive damages are sought against a corporate defendant, “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.” Code Civ. Proc., § 3294(b). Plaintiff fails to allege advance knowledge or malice on the part of any particular officer or managing agent of defendant. Plaintiff does not address this requirement in opposition. This is a statutory requirement under California law when seeking punitive damages from a defendant corporation.

Plaintiff alleged malice but failed to attribute such to a corporate officer. Plaintiff requests leave to amend in the alternative. As plaintiff has not yet amended the complaint, it is equitable to allow plaintiff to amend the pleading to specify a corporate officer if possible. “When the defect which justifies striking a complaint is capable of cure, the court should allow leave to amend.” Vaccaro v. Kaiman (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 761, 768.

GRANTED with leave to amend.