Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 23SMCV05713, Date: 2024-10-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV05713    Hearing Date: October 1, 2024    Dept: O

Case Name:  Fernandes v. Community Corporation of Santa Monica

SUBJECT:                 MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES

MOVING PARTY:   Defendant Community Corporation of Santa Monica

RESP. PARTY:         No Responsive Party as of 9-2-24 (notice of non-oppo filed 9-24-24.)

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Community Corporation of Santa Monica’s Motion to Strike is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s allegations in the Complaint do not reach the level of malice, fraud or oppression to warrant a prayer for punitive damages.

The Court orders the following stricken from the Complaint:

1.     Page 3, Section 14: "Plaintiff prays for judgment for costs of suit; for such relief as is fair, just, and equitable; and for a. (2) punitive damages."

2.     Page 6, Attachment No. COA 3, Third Cause of Action for Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability: "WH-7 Defendants conduct was deliberate and undertaken with oppression, fraud, and/or malice within the meaning provided in Civil Code § 3294, justifying an award of punitive damages sufficient to punish Defendants and deter them from such misconduct in the future."

REASONING

            Defendant Community Corporation of Santa Monica (“Defendant”) moves to strike punitive damages alleged in Plaintiff Robyn Fernandez’s (“Plaintiff) Complaint arising out of the 3^rd cause of action for implied warranty of habitability under Civ. Code § 3294. Specifically, Defendant moves to strike page 3, § 14, and page 6, attachment no COA 3 “"WH-7 Defendants conduct was deliberate and undertaken with oppression, fraud, and/or malice within the meaning provided in Civil Code § 3294, justifying an award of punitive damages sufficient to punish Defendants and deter them from such misconduct in the future." (See Compl., pp. 3, 6.)

            Plaintiff does not plead facts sufficient to show malice, fraud or oppression under the 3^rd cause of action. Plaintiff does plead negligence allegations; however, allegations of negligence or even gross negligence alone are insufficient for an award of punitive damages. (See Nolin v. National Convenience Stores, Inc. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 279, 285–286 [“conduct classified only as unintentional carelessness, while it may constitute negligence or even gross negligence, will not support an award of punitive damages.”].)

The Court notes that no opposition was filed, and Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer on 7-2-24 and 7-8-24, satisfying the requirement of CCP § 435.5.