Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 23SMCV02889, Date: 2023-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV02889    Hearing Date: December 5, 2023    Dept: O

  Case Name:  Carachure, et al. v Laterra Development, LLC, et al.

SUBJECT:                 MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES

MOVING PARTY:   Defendants Laterra Development, LLC, LT Building Corp., Yale SM Investors, LLC

RESP. PARTY:         Plaintiffs Pedro Carachure, Blanca Carachure

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendants Laterra Development, LLC, Lt Building Corp., Yale SM Investors, LLC’s Motion to Strike Punitive Damages is DENIED in full. Plaintiffs’ allegations in the complaint are sufficient to plead a claim for punitive damages under CC § 3294(a).

            “[A] motion to strike is generally used to reach defects in a pleading which are not subject to demurrer. A motion to strike does not lie to attack a complaint for insufficiency of allegations to justify relief; that is a ground for general demurrer.” (Pierson v. Sharp Memorial Hospital, Inc. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 340, 342.) A motion to strike may be directed to all or a portion of a complaint, cross-complaint, answer, or demurrer. (See Code Civ Proc., § 435, subdiv., (a).) On a motion to strike, a judge must read the complaint as a whole, considering all parts in their context, and must assume the truth of all well-pleaded allegations. (See Atwell Island Water Dist. v. Atwell Island Water Dist. (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 624, 628, as modified (Feb. 27, 2020).)

            CC §3294(a) provides, “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, subd., (a).)

            “Malice is ‘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.’ (Civ.Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1).) Oppression is ‘despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.’ (Civ.Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(2).) Despicable conduct is conduct that is so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people. Such conduct has been described as having the character of outrage frequently associated with crime.” (Scott v. Phoenix Schools, Inc. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 702, 715.)

            “In passing on the correctness of a ruling on a motion to strike, judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth.” (Dhital v. Nissan North America, Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 828, 836–837.)   “Determinations related to assessment of punitive damages have traditionally been left to the discretion of the jury.” (Egan v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 809, 821.)

            Plaintiff alleges conduct against Defendants that supports a claim of negligence. The conduct alleged could reasonably be deemed despicable conduct undertaken in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and safety under CC § 3294. The allegations include Defendants “knowingly and intentionally removing the safety guard railing from the third-floor of the subject building prior to the incident,” sending Plaintiff to perform work on the 3^rd floor knowing the safety rails had been removed, not warning Plaintiff of the known danger, and subsequently attempting to cover up the conduct. (See Complaint, p. 7, exemplary damages attachment.)