Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV06382, Date: 2025-06-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV06382    Hearing Date: June 5, 2025    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Bendickson v. Trott, Case no. 24SMCV06382

Hearing date June 5, 2025

Defendant Trott’s Motion to Strike

Plaintiff Bendickson sues defendant Trott, M.D., for breach of contract, fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiff received a surgical procedure from defendant, for which she pre-paid; she alleges she was entitled to return of that amount, as defendant was in-network with her insurer. Defendant moves to strike “warranting punitive damages” (Compl. 4:23), “Punitive damages as allowed by law” (Compl. 6:6) and “Attorneys’ fees and costs.” Compl. 6:9. Plaintiff opposes.

Per Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §3294, punitive damages are only awardable when defendant's actions demonstrate “oppression, fraud, or malice,” and such allegations must be pleaded with specificity. Punitive damages are not supported by negligence or gross negligence. See Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166. Defendant argues plaintiff failed to comply with Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §425.13, which states: “no claim for punitive damages shall be included in a complaint or other pleading unless the court enters an order allowing an amended pleading that includes a claim for punitive damages to be filed.”

Plaintiff argues Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §425.13 is inapplicable, as she does not allege professional negligence. This is incorrect. “Whenever an injured party seeks punitive damages for an injury that is directly related to the professional services provided by a healthcare provider acting in his capacity as such, then the action is one ‘arising out of the professional negligence of a healthcare provider,’ and the party must comply with section 425.13(a).” Central Pathology Service Medical Clinic v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.4th 181, 191-82.

Plaintiff’s alleged injury is defendant’s failure to reimburse expenses for a surgical procedure. See Compl. paras. 8-14. Plaintiff seeks punitive damages for an alleged injury directly related to defendant’s professional services; Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §425.13 applies. See Davis v. Superior Court (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 623; see also Cooper v. Superior Court (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 744. If plaintiff wishes to pursue punitive damages, plaintiff must move to amend the complaint and show via affidavit that “there is a substantial probability… plaintiff will prevail pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §3294.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §425.13(a).

Defendant argues attorney’s fees are not available as a matter of law, citing Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §1033.5(a)(10). Plaintiff argues Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §1021.5 applies, which permits an award of attorney’s fees where a private plaintiff enforces an important public right affecting the public interest. Plaintiff argues the instant case “seeks to hold a healthcare provider accountable for misrepresenting her in-network status and retaining insurance reimbursements that should have been returned to the patient.” Opp. 6:8-10. Plaintiff seeks to recover for a personal injury and does not cite any public policy or regulation established for the public good. The claim is particular to her and does not stand to enforce a public right. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §1021.5 does not apply. Plaintiff offers no other basis for attorney’s fees.

Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.