Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 23STCV30598, Date: 2024-10-11 Tentative Ruling

This action arises from the alleged breach of a lease agreement concerning real property located at 2430 Porter Street, Los Angeles, California 90021 (the “Premises”). The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) asserts the following causes of action: (1) breach of lease – failure to pay rent; (2) breach of lease – damage to premises; (3) breach of guaranty; and (4) waste.

On June 28, 2024, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Strike Punitive Damages (the “Motion”). Plaintiff filed an opposition on September 16, 2024, and Defendant filed a reply on September 18, 2024.

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 Civ. Proc., § 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. (Id., § 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. (Id., § 436.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Id., § 437.)

Here, Defendant moves to strike portions of Plaintiff’s FAC pertaining to punitive damages and related references.

Civil Code § 3294(a) authorizes the recovery of punitive damages in non-contract cases “where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice…”).) “Malice” is defined as conduct intended to cause injury to a person or despicable conduct carried on with a willful and conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others. (Turman v. Turning Point of Cent. Cal., Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.) “Oppression” means despicable conduct subjecting a person to cruel and unjust hardship, in conscious disregard of the person’s rights. (Ibid.) “Fraud” is an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known by defendant, with intent to deprive a person of property, rights or otherwise cause injury. (Ibid.)

Here, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant are premised mainly on an alleged breach of a lease agreement. It is well-settled under California law that punitive damages are not available for mere breaches of contract, no matter how gross or willful. (Myers Building Industries, Ltd. v. Interface Technology, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 949; see also, Crogan v. Metz (1957) 47 Cal.2d 398; ¿Contractor's Safety Ass'n v. California Compensation Ins. Co. (1957) 48 Cal.2d 71, [Punitive damages may not be granted in action based on breach of contract, even though breach was wilful or fraudulent.]; Power Standards Lab, Inc. v. Federal Exp. Corp. (2005), 127 Cal.App.4th 1039 [Under California law, plaintiff may not recover punitive damages for breach of an obligation arising out of a contract.]; Brewer v. Premier Golf Properties, LP (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1243 [When a cause of action is based on an agreement between the parties, rather than ex delicto obligations arising by law, punitive damages are ordinarily not recoverable, even where the defendant has violated his or her obligations maliciously or in bad faith.].)

To the extent Plaintiff asserts his claims against Defendant on the basis of a tortious act, it is clear that a demand for punitive damages for the commission of any tort requires more than the mere allegation of the “wrongfully and intentionally,” “oppression, fraud, and malice” sort of language found in Civil Code § 3294. (Perkins v Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6 – 7.) The allegations of fact must, in their totality, describe a state of mind and a motive that would sustain an award of punitive damages. (Id.) The mere allegation that an intentional tort is committed is not sufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages. (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166.) Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim. (Id.)

Here, the FAC does not allege facts sufficient to constitute malice, oppression or fraud as those terms are defined in Civil Code § 3294(c)(1)-(3) for purposes of the imposition of punitive damages. Conclusory allegations, devoid of any factual assertions, are insufficient to support a conclusion that parties acted with oppression, fraud or malice. (Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1042.)

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