Judge: Gail Killefer, Case: 24STCV08344, Date: 2024-09-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV08344    Hearing Date: September 18, 2024    Dept: 37

HEARING DATE:                 Wednesday, September 18, 2024

CASE NUMBER:                   24STCV08344

CASE NAME:                        Antonio Espinoza v. JobSource Carson, Inc., et al.

MOVING PARTY:                 Defendant JobSource Carson (erroneously sued as “Jobsource Carson, Inc.”)

OPPOSING PARTY:             Plaintiff Antonio Espinoza

TRIAL DATE:                        Not set.

PROOF OF SERVICE:           OK

PROCEEDING:                      Motion to Strike Complaint

OPPOSITION:                        31 July 2024

REPLY:                                  14 August 2024

TENTATIVE:                         Defendant’s motion to strike is granted with leave to amend.

Background

On April 3, 2024, Antonio Espinoza (“Plaintiff’) filed a Complaint against JobSource Carson, Inc.; JobSource Carson; (collectively “Defendants”); and Does 1 to 100. The operative Complaint alleges the following six causes of action:

1)     Disability Discrimination in Violation of Gov. Code § 12940(a): Disparate Treatment Based on Disability and/or Perceived Disability;

2)     Disability Discrimination in Violation of Gov. Code § 12940(m): Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation;

3)     Disability Discrimination in Violation of Gov. Code § 12940(n): Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process;

4)     Retaliation in Violation of Gov. Code § 12940(h);

5)     Failure to Do Everything Reasonably Necessary to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation from Occurring in Violation of Gov. Code § 12940(k); and

6)     Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy.

On June 21, 2024, Defendant JobSource Carson (erroneously sued as “Jobsource Carson, Inc.”) (hereinafter “Defendant”) filed a motion to strike punitive damages from the Complaint. Plaintiff opposes the Motion. The matter is now before the court.

motion to strike complaint[1]

I.         Legal Standard

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof. (CCP § 435(b)(1); CRC, rule 3.1322(b).) The court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion and upon terms it deems proper: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (CCP, § 436(a)-(b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782 [“Matter in a pleading which is not essential to the claim is surplusage; probative facts are surplusage and may be stricken out or disregarded”].)¿¿¿¿ 

“Where the defect raised by a motion to strike or by demurrer is reasonably capable of cure, leave to amend is routinely and liberally granted to give the plaintiff a chance to cure the defect in question.” (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1146.) The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.)¿¿¿ 

II.        Discussion

Defendant moves to strike punitive damages from the Complaint, as alleged in Paragraphs 40, 54, 68, 90, 99, 108, and Paragraph D in the Prayer for Relief, on the basis that the Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to support a claim for punitive damages.

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was hired by Defendants and held the position of stocker when he was hired on or about January 2021. (Compl., ¶ 22.) On July 6, 2021, Plaintiff suffered an occupational injury to his left hand and reported the injury to Defendants. (Id., ¶ 24.) As a result of his injury, Plaintiff sought various accommodations due to his disability such as modified work duty, time off to see a doctor, and assistance with lifting heavy items. (Id., ¶ 25) On July 8, 2021, Defendants terminated Plaintiff due to his disability and/or perceived disability and requested accommodations. (Id., ¶ 26.)

To state a claim for punitive damages under Civ. Code § 3294, a plaintiff must allege specific facts showing that the defendant has been guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud. (Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal. App. 4th 1033, 1042.)¿ The basis for punitive damages must be pled with specificity; conclusory allegations devoid of any factual assertions are insufficient. (Ibid.)¿¿“Malice” is defined in Civ. Code § 3294 (c)(1) as “conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury” or “despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” “Oppression” is “despicable conduct subjecting a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.” (Civ. Code § 3294(c)(2).) The term “despicable” has been defined in the case law as actions that are “base,” “vile,” or “contemptible.”¿ (Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 847, 891.)¿¿ 

The Complaint also fails to identify an officer, director, or managing agent of Defendant who knew about Plaintiff’s disability and requests for accommodation and who made or ratified the decision to terminate Plaintiff based on Plaintiff’s disability. When the defendant is a¿corporation, “the oppression, fraud, or malice must be perpetrated, authorized, or knowingly ratified by an officer, director, or managing agent of the¿corporation.” (Wilson v. Southern California Edison Company (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 123, 164; see Civ. Code, § 3294(b).)  Without such facts, the court cannot find that Defendant is vicariously liable for the malice, fraud, or oppression perpetrated by one of its employees.

Therefore, the motion to strike is granted with leave to amend.

Conclusion

Defendant’s motion to strike is granted with leave to amend.