Judge: Gail Killefer, Case: 24STCV12494, Date: 2024-09-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV12494    Hearing Date: September 16, 2024    Dept: 37

HEARING DATE:                 Monday, September 16, 2024

CASE NUMBER:                   24STCV12494

CASE NAME:                        Rin Mai v. Bayside Metal Exchange

MOVING PARTY:                 Defendant Bayside Metal Exchange

OPPOSING PARTY:             Plaintiff Rain Mai

TRIAL DATE:                        Not set.  

PROOF OF SERVICE:           OK

PROCEEDING:                      Motion to Strike Punitive Damages

OPPOSITION:                        3 September 2024

REPLY:                                  9 September 2024

TENTATIVE:                         Defendant’s motion to strike punitive damages is granted with 10 days leave to amend. The court sets a Non-Appearance OSC RE: Amended Complaint for October 3, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. and continues the Case Management Conference to November 6, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.  Defendant to give notice.

Background

On May 17, 2024, Rin Mai (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Bayside Metal Exchange (“Defendant”). The Complaint alleges eight causes of action:

1)     Disability Discrimination (Associational Discrimination) in Violation of Gov. Code §§ 12900 et. seq. of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”);

2)     Retaliation for Requesting/Taking California Family Rights Act Leave in Violation of Gov. Code § 12945.2;

3)     Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy;

4)     Failure to Pay Minimum Wages;

5)     Failure to Pay Overtime Wages;

6)     Failure to Authorize or Permit Rest Periods;

7)     Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages; and

8)     Unfair Competition, Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.

Defendant now moves to strike the Complaint’s request for punitive damages. Plaintiff opposes the Motion. The matter is now before the court.

Motion to Strike[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 Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages. (Compl., ¶¶ 50, 62, Prayer, ¶ 3.)

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.)¿¿ 

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff fails allege facts to show that Defendant acted with malice, oppression, or fraud sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages. Plaintiff asserts that Paragraphs 24 to 26 sufficiently allege facts to support a claim for punitive damages. Paragraphs 24 to 26 allege that Plaintiff requested one week off from work to care for his wife who was recovering from surgery and upon his return he was terminated in retaliation for taking time off. (Compl., ¶¶ 24 to 25.)

While Plaintiff’s supervisor approved the request for time off, Plaintiff fails to allege that his supervisor knew that the request for leave was to allow Plaintiff time to care for his wife who recovering from major surgery. (Compl., ¶ 24.) Plaintiff fails to allege facts that his supervisor perceived Plaintiff as disabled because his supervisor equated surgery as a disability. Plaintiff also fails to allege that his supervisor was the one who terminated him, and that the decision was motivated by discriminatory animus. Without such facts, the court cannot find that Plaintiff’s supervisor or another agent of Defendant acted with a conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights by terminating him due to his perceived disability.

Lastly, the Complaint fails to allege that the supervisor was a managing agent of the Defendant who discriminated against Plaintiff. 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).)

The Court grants the motion to strike and grants Plaintiff ten days leave to amend.

Conclusion

Defendant’s motion to strike punitive damages is granted with 10 days leave to amend. The court

sets a Non-Appearance OSC RE: Amended Complaint for October 3, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. and

continues the Case Management Conference to November 6, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.  Defendant to

give notice.