Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 24BBCV00342, Date: 2024-05-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24BBCV00342    Hearing Date: May 3, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO STRIKE

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is requested and any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

Emon Sarraf-Yazdi (Plaintiff) brings this action against Nowhere California, LLC dba Erewhon Studio City (Defendant). Plaintiff alleges he was injured while using the self-serve soup at a grocery store operated by Defendant.

Defendant now moves to strike Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages, arguing the Complaint does not allege facts speaking to Defendant’s malice, oppression, or fraud. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

Motion to Strike

Motions to strike are used to reach defects or objections to pleadings that are not challengeable by demurrer, such as words, phrases, and prayers for damages. (See C.C.P. §§ 435, 436, and 437.) The proper procedure to attack false allegations in a pleading is a motion to strike. (C.C.P. § 436(a).) In granting a motion to strike made under C.C.P. § 435, “[t]he court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435 [notice of motion to strike whole or part of complaint], or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.” (C.C.P. § 436(a).) Irrelevant matters include immaterial allegations that are not essential to the claim or those not pertinent to or supported by an otherwise sufficient claim. (C.C.P. § 431.10.) The court may also “[s]trike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” (C.C.P. § 436 (b).)

Punitive Damages

Punitive damages may be imposed where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Cal. Civ. Code, § 3294.) “Malice” is conduct intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. (Cal. Civ. Code, § 3294 (c)(1).) “‘Punitive damages are proper only when the tortious conduct rises to levels of extreme indifference to the plaintiff’s rights, a level which decent citizens should not have to tolerate.’ [Citation.]” (Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1210.)

A motion to strike punitive damages is properly granted where a plaintiff does not state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, including allegations that defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud or malice. (Turman v. Turning Point of Cent. California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.) “Mere negligence, even gross negligence, is not sufficient to justify such an award” for punitive damages. (Kendall Yacht Corp. v. United California Bank (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 949, 958.) Moreover, conclusory allegations are not sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages. (Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 872.)

II.                 MERITS

Meet and Confer

C.C.P. § 435.5(a) requires that the moving party meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to a motion to strike. Upon review the Court finds the meet and confer requirements were met. (Ortiz Decl. ¶¶ 4-12.)

Discussion

The Court first notes that Plaintiff’s Complaint is a Form Complaint. While the Complaint identifies causes of action for General Negligence and Premises Liability, there are no causes of action attached as required by Section 10 of the Form Complaint. The only attachment to Plaintiff’s Complaint is Exhibit A. Exhibit A contains three pictures of an injured hand, presumably Plaintiff’s. Further, there are no factual allegations in the body of the Form Complaint. The only reason the Court is aware of Plaintiff’s allegation that he was burned by the self-serve soup station is because these facts were stated in Defendant’s motion.  

As the Complaint is bereft of any facts, it follows that there are no facts alleged supporting Defendant’s malice, oppression, or fraud. Plaintiff may be able to allege such facts, but he has not done so here.

Accordingly, Defendant’s unopposed Motion to Strike is GRANTED with 20 days’ leave to amend.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Nowhere California, LLC dba Erewhon Studio City’s Motion to Strike came on regularly for hearing on May 3, 2024, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION TO STRIKE IS GRANTED WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND.

THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SET FOR JULY 1, 2024 REMAINS.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, DEFENDANT TO GIVE NOTICE.  

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  May 3, 2024                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles