Judge Gregory Keosian, Case Number: 22STCV01111, Date: 2023-10-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 22STCV01111, Date: 2023-10-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV01111 Hearing Date: October 9, 2023 Dept: 61

Defendant Gary T. Greene’s Motion to Strike Portions of the First Amended Complaint is DENIED.

Plaintiff to give notice.

I. MOTION TO STRIKE

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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435(b)(1)). The notice of motion to strike a portion of a pleading shall quote in full the portions sought to be stricken except where the motion is to strike an entire paragraph, cause of action, count or defense. (California Rules of Court Rule 3.1322.)

The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or form any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437(a)). The court then may strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading and strike 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) When the defect which justifies striking a complaint is capable of cure, the court should allow leave to amend. (Perlman v. Municipal Court (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 568, 575.)

Defendant Gary T. Greene (Defendant) moves to strike the prayer for punitive damages from Plaintiff Daniel Becker’s First Amended Complaint (FAC) on the grounds that insufficient facts are alleged to support the existence of malice, oppression, or fraud. (Motion at pp. 4–7.)

Punitive damages are allowed in non-contract cases when a defendant is guilty of “oppression, fraud, or malice.” (Civ. Code § 3294, subd. (a).) The terms are defined as:

“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.

“Oppression” means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.

“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.

(Civ. Code § 3294, subd. (c)(1)–(3).)

Something more than the mere commission of a tort is always required for punitive damages. (Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 894.) Proof of negligence, gross negligence, or recklessness is insufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages. (Dawes v. Sup.Ct. (Mardian) (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 82, 88–89.) Punitive damages may be recovered in an action for negligence or other nonintentional torts if the plaintiff pleads and proves that the defendant acted with the state of mind described as “conscious disregard” of the potential dangers to others. (Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1299.) When malice is based on a defendant’s conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights, the conduct must be both despicable and willful. (College Hospital v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 794, 713 (“College Hospital”).)

The FAC here alleges ample basis for seeking punitive damages against Defendant. It is not merely alleged that Defendant committed a tort by failing to remedy various defects in Plaintiff’s unit, including a leak of sewage onto his bed, but further that Defendant knew of the defects prior to his lease of the premises (FAC ¶ 19), that he repeatedly misrepresented that he had already retained professionals to deal with the alleged problems (FAC ¶¶ 13, 19) , and at various points thereafter either point-blank refused to remediate the defects, or attempted to persuade Plaintiff to move out of the premises. (FAC ¶¶ 20–24.) It is alleged that Defendant only made earnest efforts at remediation when directed to do so by City inspectors. (FAC ¶ 30.) These allegations support the presence of malice, oppression, and fraud.

The motion to strike is DENIED.