Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV05660, Date: 2025-04-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV05660    Hearing Date: April 28, 2025    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Urie v. Target Corporation, Case no. 24SMCV05660

Hearing date April 28, 2025

Defendant Target’s Motion to Strike Punitive Damages

Plaintiff Urie sues defendant Target Corporation for false imprisonment and IIED. While exiting a Target store, plaintiff was stopped by an unidentified manager and another employee. When asked for his receipt, plaintiff refused, alleging he was unsure if the individuals worked at the store. Plaintiff alleges the employees retaliated by calling the police. He sues, seeking punitive damages, which defendant moves to strike (para. 15, prayer 4).

Punitive damages are allowable if 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. 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, allegations must be treated as true. E.g., Clauson v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.

Defendant argues the allegations are conclusory and lacking in detail. Plaintiff alleges the unidentified employees intentionally made a false report to law enforcement in retaliation for plaintiff refusing to show his store receipt. Compl. para. 9. Plaintiff alleges defendants knew the police report was false and acted with reckless indifference to that fact, placing plaintiff in danger. Compl. paras. 9-10.

These allegations sound in fraud. Fraud is an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to defendant with intent to deprive plaintiff of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury. Cal. Civ. Code §3294(c)(3). Plaintiff fails to allege details as to how defendant or its employees knew the report to law enforcement was false. Plaintiff admittedly refused to show his receipt. Compl. para. 8. He fails to show how the employees should have known he was not committing a crime, or how they knew the report to police was false. Fraud requires such facts to be known to defendant; the complaint lacks such allegations.

Defendant argues there is no alleged basis to impose punitive damages against a corporate defendant. A plaintiff seeking punitive damages must allege facts showing defendant "had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice" and that the "advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or agent" of the business entity. Civil Code § 3294(b); see Scannell v. County of Riverside (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 596, 614. There are no such allegations.

Plaintiff argues one of the employees was a manager, who ratified the conduct on behalf of Target. This argument is unavailing. "Managing agents are employees who exercise substantial discretionary authority over decisions that ultimately determine corporate policy." Cruz v. Home Base (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 160, 167. The alleged manager of a specific retail location is not an individual who, by default, directs corporate policy.

Plaintiff offers no specifics; only conclusory allegation that the employee had “managerial authority.” Plaintiff offers no allegations as to how the individual allegedly determines corporate policy or exercises authority necessary to ratify Target’s behavior.

The motion is GRANTED for failure to allege the required specifics of the employees’ knowingly fraudulent conduct and managerial ratification. Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend is GRANTED, if plaintiff has a factual basis for making allegations that (1) the employees knew the police report was false at the time they made it, and (2) the basis for the alleged manager’s authority to bind Target. 15 days leave to amend.