Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 20STCV15108, Date: 2023-12-13 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants ITT Aerospace Controls LLC, Electrofilm Manufacturing Company LLC, ITT Inc., and Hugo Larios (“collectively, “Defendants”).

This action arises out of an employment relationship. Plaintiff seeks punitive damages in connection with several of the claims in the operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) brought under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). Plaintiff filed a motion for an order to conduct pretrial discovery regarding Defendants’ financial condition (the “Motion”) in relation to the FAC’s prayer for punitive damages.

Civil Code, section 3295, subdivision (c) prohibits pretrial discovery by a plaintiff with respect to the financial condition of a defendant absent a court order. (Civ. Code § 3295, subd. (c).) Upon motion by the plaintiff supported by appropriate affidavits and after a hearing, if the court deems a hearing to be necessary, the court may at any time enter an order permitting the discovery otherwise prohibited by this subdivision if the court finds, on the basis of the supporting and opposing affidavits presented, that the plaintiff has established that there is a substantial probability that the plaintiff will prevail on a claim for punitive damages pursuant to Civil Code section 3294. (Id.) Such order shall not be considered to be a determination on the merits of the claim or any defense thereto and shall not be given in evidence or referred to at the trial. (Id.)

A trial court considering a motion to permit discovery of a defendant’s financial condition must weigh the evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to the motion and determine whether the plaintiff has established a substantial probability of prevailing on a claim for punitive damages. (Kerner v. Superior Court (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 84, 120.) In this context, a “substantial probability” of prevailing on a claim for punitive damages means that it is “very likely” that the plaintiff will prevail on such a claim or there is a “strong likelihood” that the plaintiff will prevail on such a claim. (Id.)

A plaintiff may recover punitive damages in an action for breach of an obligation not arising from contract when the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (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).) Despicable conduct is conduct which is so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people. (Mock v. Michigan Millers Mutual Ins. Co. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 306, 331.) Oppression is defined as 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 which is so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people.” (Tomaselli v. Transamerica Ins. Co. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1287.)

The Motion argues that Plaintiff is entitled to financial discovery based on the evidence submitted in opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (the “MSJ”), and the ruling court’s resulting determination that there were triable issues of material fact that precluded summary adjudication of the issue of punitive damages. The Court is not persuaded by the argument that a prior determination that Plaintiff’s evidence was sufficient to raise a triable issue of material fact is equivalent to a showing that Plaintiff has a substantial probability of prevailing on his punitive damages claims. The Motion makes no attempt to present evidence or argue that Plaintiff’s evidence is sufficient to demonstrate a substantial probability of prevailing on the punitive damages claim.[1] The Court therefore DENIES the motion.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] The evidence offered in support of the Motion consists solely of the separate statement Plaintiff filed in opposition to Defendants’ MSJ.