Judge Jill Feeney, Case 19STCV28264 2022-08-02 Tentative Ruling

If Plaintiff wished to amend the complaint, Plaintiff must file and serve the Third Amended Complaint within 20 days after the date of this order. This complaint, if there is one, must be filed and served timely. Plaintiff should include all facts in support of Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages in any amended complaint.

Demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored. (Lickiss v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125.) This is because any ambiguities can be clarified during discovery. (Id.) Such demurrers should be granted only when the pleadings are so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot respond. (Id.)

Defendants California Police Athletic Federation, Bell Sports, Inc., and the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Association (hereinafter “Defendants”) each filed separate Motions to Strike Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages. (See generally, Motions to Strike, filed 6/30/22 and 7/5/22).

Defendant California Police Athletic Federations moves the Court to strike the Plaintiff’s entire Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), Page 17, Paragraph 2 of the SAC that states a request “. . . for punitive damages as to the fourth cause of action.” (Motion to Strike, Res ID. 4882, p. ii).

Defendant Bell Sports, Inc. and Vista Outdoor Operations, LLC move the Court to strike Page 10, Paragraph 42, Lines 1-2 of the SAC which states, “Defendants’ conduct was so intentional, dangerous, careless, and wantonly reckless that it justifies a reward of punitive damages; Page 10, Paragraph 47, Lines 15-20, which states, “Defendants’ officers, directors, and/or managing agents had actual knowledge of the malicious conduct and its outrageous character as described above via testing of the helmet at issue, and Defendants’ officers, directors, and/or managing agents ratified this conduct by putting this helmet out into the stream of commerce”; and Page 17, Lines 13-14, which states “for punitive damages as to the first cause of action.” “ (Motion to Strike, Res ID. 1448, p. 2).

Defendant Los Angeles Sheriff’s Athletic Association moves the Court to strike Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages in Plaintiff’s prayer for relief under Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action (Motion to Strike, Res ID. 7376, p. 2).

Plaintiff opposes each of the Defendants’ Motions to Strike by copying and pasting portions of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and realleging the same facts that support her prayer of relief for punitive damages. Specifically, Plaintiff copies and pastes Paragraphs 33 to 47 of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint in opposition to Defendant Bell Sports, Inc. and Paragraphs 77 to 81 in opposition to both Defendant Los Angeles Sheriff’s Athletic Association and Defendant California Police Athletic Federation’s Motion to Strike. (Opposition, p. 2-3).

Each Defendant filed a reply brief with the same arguments: that Plaintiff has failed to address the actual arguments made in each of their respective Motions to Strike. Defendant California Police Athletic Federation also states that Plaintiff failed to file the SAC within the 20 days of leave to amend that was provided, to wit, by May 24, 2022.

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1322, subd. (b).) The court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion and upon terms it deems proper: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a)-(b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782.)

In order to state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a complaint must set forth the elements as stated in the general punitive damage statute, Civil Code section 3294. (College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 721.) These statutory elements include allegations that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) “‘Oppression’ means 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).)

“Malice is defined in the statute as conduct 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.” (College Hospital, Inc., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 725 [examining Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1)].) “A conscious disregard of the safety of others may constitute malice within the meaning of section 3294 of the Civil Code. In order to justify an award of punitive damages on this basis, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his conduct, and that he willfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences.” (Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895-896.)

“As amended to include [despicable], the statute plainly indicates that absent an intent to injure the plaintiff, ‘malice’ requires more than a ‘willful and conscious’ disregard of the plaintiffs’ interests. The additional component of ‘despicable conduct’ must be found.” (College Hospital, Inc., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 725.) The statute’s reference to despicable conduct represents a “new substantive limitation on punitive damage awards.” (Ibid.) 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. Such conduct has been described as ‘having the character of outrage frequently associated with crime.’” (Tomaselli v. Transamerica Ins. Co. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1287.)

“In order to survive a motion to strike an allegation of punitive damages, the ultimate facts showing an entitlement to such relief must be pled by a plaintiff. [Citations.] 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. [Citations.] In ruling on a motion to strike, courts do not read allegations in isolation. [Citation.]” (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.) “The mere allegation an intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages. [Citation.] Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim. [Citation.]” (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166 [footnote omitted].)

“[T]he imposition of punitive damages upon a corporation is based upon its own fault. It is not imposed vicariously by virtue of the fault of others.” (City Products Corp. v. Globe Indemnity Co. (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 31, 36.) “Corporations are legal entities which do not have minds capable of recklessness, wickedness, or intent to injure or deceive. An award of punitive damages against a corporation therefore must rest on the malice of the corporation’s employees. But the law does not impute every employee’s malice to the corporation. Instead, the punitive damages statute requires proof of malice among corporate leaders: the ‘officer[s], director[s], or managing agent[s].’” (Cruz v. Home Base (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 160, 167 [citation omitted].) As to ratification, “[a] corporation cannot confirm and accept that which it does not actually know about.’” (Ibid. [citing College Hospital, Inc., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 726 [for ratification sufficient to justify punitive damages against corporation, there must be proof that officers, directors, or managing agents had actual knowledge of the malicious conduct and its outrageous character]].)

Defendant California Police Athletic Federation requests that the Court dismiss the SAC because Plaintiff had until May 24, 2022 to file its amended complaint, but did not file it until May 31, 2022. Under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 581(f)(4), a plaintiff’s failure to amend a complaint within the time allowed by the court may be dismissed, but dismissal is not compulsory. The Court declines to dismiss the SAC here.

The second cause of action is labelled as “negligence.” The cause of action appears to allege negligent products liability (SAC ¶¶ 48-53) as a basis for a wrongful death cause of action (SAC ¶¶ 55-57). The Court reads this cause of action as a wrongful death cause of action and hence punitive damages are not available for this cause of action.

The only factual allegation with respect to punitive damages is: “Defendants’ officers, directors and/or managing agents had actual knowledge of the malicious conduct and its outrageous character as described above via testing of the helmet at issue, and Defendants’ officers, directors, and/or managing agents ratified this conduct by putting this helmet out into the stream of commerce.” (SAC¶ 47.)

Defendant Los Angeles Sheriff’s Athletic Association moves the Court to strike Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages under Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action for Survival Action. Defendant California Police Athletic Federation also moves to Court to strike Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), Page 17, Paragraph 2 request “. . for punitive damages as to the fourth cause of action.”

In Plaintiff’s SAC, Plaintiff alleges that “as a result of the carelessness, negligence, recklessness, wantonness unlawfulness and/or omissions of the Defendants and DOES 1 through 200, and each of them, as herein alleged, DECEDENT died on or about August 11, 2017, and DEFENDANTS and through its action were a substantial factor in causing DECEDENT's injuries and death.” (SAC at ¶77). Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants’ officers, directors, and/or managing agents ratified this conduct by being aware of the mountain bike pathway, being aware of the lack of safety-personnel and other proper safety measures, and still developed, managed, coordinated, organized, operated, supported, hosted, controlled, promoted, the event and allowed it to take place.” (Id. at ¶ 81).

Here, Plaintiff fails to allege facts that demonstrate how Defendants, by hosting/organizing the event, acted with malice, oppression, or fraud to support an allegation of punitive damages. For this reason, the motion to strike is granted with respect to these Defendants also.