Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 22TRCV00082, Date: 2022-08-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22TRCV00082 Hearing Date: August 23, 2022 Dept: B
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT
Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Tuesday, August 23, 2022
Department B Calendar No. 1
PROCEEDINGS
William Todd Robinson v. Alan Boeke, et al.
22TRCV00082
Alan Boeke, et al.’s Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint
TENTATIVE RULING
Alan Boeke, et al.’s Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint is denied.
Background
Plaintiff filed the Complaint on February 3, 2022. Plaintiff alleges the following facts. Plaintiff and Defendant Alan Boeke were both shopping at a Vons market when they had an argument inside the store. When Plaintiff exited the store, Defendant Boeke, was already in his vehicle, and intentionally drove his vehicle into Plaintiff and struck Plaintiff. Defendant Boeke then backed up the vehicle and intentionally ran over Plaintiff’s legs. Defendant then fled the scene of the incident. Afterwards, Defendants Boeke and Ronald Stevenson fraudulently transferred their interest in the personal residence on 3616 Elm Avenue in the City of Manhattan Beach to an Irrevocable Trust entitled The Rainbow Trust, for less than adequate consideration, or for zero consideration, to limit the amount of assets available from which Plaintiff could collect a potential judgment. Plaintiff alleges causes of action for: 1. Negligence; 2. Battery; 3. IIED; 4. Fraudulent Transfer. Plaintiff alleges a prayer for punitive damages.
Meet and Confer
Defendants set forth a meet and confer declaration in sufficient compliance with CCP § 435.5. (Decl., Hali Aziz ¶¶ 4-8.)
Motion to Strike
The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. CCP § 436(a). The court may also strike 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. CCP § 436(b). The grounds for a motion to strike are that the pleading has irrelevant, false or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws. CCP § 436. The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. CCP § 437.
Civ. Code, § 3294 states, in relevant part:
“(a) 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.
(b) An employer shall not be liable for damages pursuant to subdivision (a), based upon acts of an employee of the employer, unless the employer had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. With respect to a corporate employer, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation.
(c) As used in this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) “Malice” means conduct which is 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.
(2) “Oppression” means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.
(3) “Fraud” means 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.”
To state a claim for punitive damages, Plaintiffs must allege specific facts rather than conclusions that Defendant’s conduct constitutes oppression, fraud, or malice. Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 872.
Defendants move to strike the following portions of the Complaint: page 6, lines 1-5, and the prayer for punitive damages found on page 7, line 26; page 8, line 8; and line 17.
The Court notes that the motion suffers from the following procedural defects. The motion was filed on August 18, 2022. A motion to strike must be filed within the time allotted to respond to a pleading. Here, the proofs of service indicate that Defendants were served by mail to Defendants’ counsel of record pursuant to an agreement to accept service on February 21, 2022. The motion was filed well after the time allotted to respond to a pleading. In addition, the motion was filed only 3 court days before the hearing rather than the mandated 16 court days pursuant to CCP § 1005(b).
As to Defendant Boeke, Defendant essentially disputes Plaintiff’s contention that he intended to strike Plaintiff with his vehicle and argues that the allegations of intentional conduct are vague. However, there is nothing vague about these allegations. At the pleading stage, the Court deems the allegations as true. Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state his causes of action for Battery and IIED based on Defendant’s conduct in intentionally attempting to run over Plaintiff, a pedestrian, with his vehicle, after the parties had an argument at the supermarket, and then fleeing the scene of his intentional attempt to run over Plaintiff with his vehicle. These allegations support the necessary facts of oppression or malice to support a prayer for punitive damages.
As to Defendant Stevenson, Defendant essentially contends that he did not fraudulently attempt to transfer assets and argues that the allegations are not specific enough to support punitive damages on this theory. At the pleading stage, the Court deems the allegations as true. In addition, Defendant did not demur to the cause of action for Fraudulent Transfer. Thus, this cause of action which is specifically based on conduct amounting to fraud may support a prayer for punitive damages. Plaintiff alleged facts to support this cause of action in paragraphs 14, 30, and 31 of the Complaint.
Therefore, Defendants’ motion to strike is denied.
Defendants are ordered to file and serve an Answer within 10 days of this date.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.