Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 24CHCV00106, Date: 2024-04-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV00106    Hearing Date: April 2, 2024    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 4-2-24

Case # 24CHCV00106, Nathan Andualem vs. Tutor Time, et al.

Trial Date: N/A

MOTION TO STRIKE

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Tutor Time Learning Centers, LLC, Katherine Stevens, and Terry Guevara

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Nathan Andualem, a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem Andualem Asaye Shume

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Strike

·         Claim for Punitive Damages and related allegations [Comp., ¶¶ 11, 24, 33, 37, and 39; and Paragraph 6 of the prayer]

RULING: Motion to strike is granted.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Nathan Andualem, a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, (Plaintiff) filed this case on January 10, 2024. Plaintiff has alleged that he suffered injuries while in the care of Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Guevara, an employee of Defendant Tutor Time, pulled Plaintiff’s arm and injured him while at the premises. Plaintiff alleges that Tutor Time, Katherine Stevens, and Guevara were responsible for watching over Plaintiff at the time of the incident. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants attempted to cover up the incident and denied knowledge of how Plaintiff was injured, made up lies as to how Plaintiff was injured, withheld video evidence showing how Plaintiff injured, failed to immediately notify Plaintiff’s parents about how Plaintiff was injured, and failed to immediately give Plaintiff medical attention.

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges three causes of action for (1) Premises Liability; (2) Negligent Retention, Hiring, and Supervision; and (3) Negligence.

Defendants filed their motion to strike on February 20, 2024. Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ motion. Defendants have moved to strike Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages.

ANALYSIS

A court may strike from the complaint any irrelevant, false, or improper matter. Under CCP § 435, “[a]ny 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.” Under CCP § 436(a), “[t]he court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper . . . [s]trike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.”

            Punitive Damages

Punitive damages are governed by Civ. Code § 3294: “In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.” (Civ. Code § 3294(a).)

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants acted with malice, fraud, or oppression (See Comp., ¶¶ 11, 17, 18, etc.). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants acted with malice, fraud, and oppression by failing to disclose to Plaintiff’s parents the circumstances of Plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants acted in this manner by withholding the video footage of the incident and engaging in an alleged cover up of the incident.

Defendants argue in their motion to strike that Plaintiff’s allegations are not sufficient to maintain a claim for punitive damages. Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory rather than specific.

In order to state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a complaint must set forth the elements as stated in Civ. Code § 3294. (Coll. Hosp., Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 721.) “Malice is defined in the statute as conduct intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” (Id. at 725.) Oppression is “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.” (Civ. Code § 3294(c)(2).) Fraud is defined as “an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.” (Civ. Code § 3294(c)(3).)

Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 965, 1004 explained that “punitive damages sometimes may be assessed in unintentional tort actions.” Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 894-895 noted that “something more than the mere commission of a tort is always required for punitive damages. There must be circumstances of aggravation or outrage, such as spite or malice, or a fraudulent or evil motive on the part of the defendant, or such a conscious and deliberate disregard of the interests of others that his conduct may be called willful or wanton.” Indeed, “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.” (Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1210 (internal quotation omitted).)

The “conclusory characterization of defendant’s conduct as intentional, willful and fraudulent is a patently insufficient statement of oppression, fraud or malice…within the meaning of section 3294.” (Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 872.)

It is somewhat unclear from Plaintiff’s complaint whether Plaintiff is alleging that the pulling of Plaintiff’s arm was the event for which punitive damages are due, or whether it was the alleged cover up after the incident. However, Plaintiff seems to be alleging that Defendants engaged in malice, oppression, and fraud in both instances. (See Comp., § 24.) The cover up allegations would seemingly go beyond the scope of the causes of action alleged in the complaint, which were for negligence, negligent hiring and retention, and premises liability tied to the injuries Plaintiff sustained when Defendant Guevara allegedly pulled Plaintiff’s arm. Though Plaintiff has alleged that Defendants acted with malice, oppression, or fraud when causing Plaintiff injuries, Plaintiff provides no specific factual allegations for why he is alleging this.

For Plaintiff to maintain his claim for punitive damages, Plaintiff must provide specific allegations for how Defendants’ actions go beyond normal negligence such that Plaintiff would be able to recover punitive damages.

Defendants’ motion to strike the requests for punitive damages and related allegations is granted with leave to amend.

Plaintiff is given 30 days leave to amend their complaint.

Moving party to give notice to all parties.