Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 21STCV18162, Date: 2025-01-13 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.

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Hyundai Motor Company and Hyundai Motor America (“Defendants”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Jose Luis Gonzalez Castillo et al (“Plaintiffs”)

Plaintiffs filed the instant automobile accident action on May 13,2021. The currently operative third amended complaint (the “TAC”) alleges cause of action for: (1) negligence; (2) product liability; and (3) wrongful death and survival action.

On October 3, 2024, Defendants filed the instant motion to strike (the “Motion”). Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Motion (the “Opposition”) on December 30, 2024 and Defendants filed a reply (the “Reply”) on January 6, 2025.

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. (Code Civil Procedure (“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.) A Motion to Strike is the proper procedure for testing the adequacy of a punitive damages allegation because punitive damages are not a cause of action. (Grieves v. Superior Ct. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 164.)

To obtain punitive damages in an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, a plaintiff must demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) The clear and convincing evidence standard “requires a finding of high probability . . . ‘so clear as to leave no substantial doubt’; sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind.” (Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1211.)

“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).) "[D]espicable” connotes conduct that is ". . . so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people.” (Lackner, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 1210.) “Malice” is defined as “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).) “Not only must there by circumstances of oppression, fraud or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim.” (Grieves, supra, 157 Cal.App.3d at p. 166.)

A request for punitive damages against a corporation must allege that an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation was either personally responsible for the allegedly despicable conduct or that an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation: (1) had advance knowledge of the despicable conduct and consciously disregarded it; or (2) authorized or ratified the despicable conduct. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (b).)

Defendants move to strikes certain portions of the TAC on grounds that Plaintiffs have not alleged facts entitling them to recover punitive damages and cannot recover survival damages for pain, suffering, or disfigurement incurred by the decedent prior to her death. (Mot. p. 1:9-25.) Specifically, Defendants move to strike paragraphs 83(b), 94, 96, 104, 106, 126, 138, 140, 151, 154, 167, 172 and prayer for relief number 8 from Plaintiffs’ TAC. Plaintiffs concede that the non-economic damages sustained by the decedent prior to her death should be stricken from the TAC (Opp. p. 3:3-4.)

Upon review of Plaintiffs punitive damages allegations, Plaintiffs fail to adequately allege that an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation: (1) had advance knowledge of the despicable conduct and consciously disregarded it; or (2) authorized or ratified the despicable conduct. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (b).) There are no facts alleged in the TAC addressing any conduct whatsoever by an officer, director, or managing agent of Defendants.

In the Opposition, Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants “have not provided sufficient information in discovery for Plaintiffs to identify officers, directors, or managing agents who participated in, authorized, or ratified any malicious, oppressive, or fraudulent conduct by these entities or their employees.” (Opp. p. 7:23-26) The Court notes, however, that discovery in this action has been ongoing since 2021. The Plaintiffs have had ample opportunity to uncover facts that could support a claim for punitive damages; however, they have failed to uncover any indication of malicious conduct by a corporate officer entitling them to punitive damages against Defendants. Moreover, Plaintiffs have not set forth any additional allegations that they could make that would transform a simple negligence/product liability/wrongful death and survival action into a case that would potentially give rise to a punitive damage claim. Thus, the allegations of the TAC are insufficient to support the request for punitive damages.

The Motion to Strike is GRANTED, without leave to amend. Paragraphs 83(b), 94, 96, 104, 106, 126, 138, 140, 151, 154, 167, 172 and prayer for relief number 8 are hereby stricken from the TAC.

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