Judge Jill Feeney, Case 21STCV37461 2022-09-27 Tentative Ruling

This is an action for negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, premises liability, and unsafe conditions arising from a slip and fall incident which took place in October 2019. Plaintiff Cesar Castaneda filed his Complaint against Defendant Choice Hotels International, Inc. and Does 1 through 10 on October 12, 2021.

“60. Defendant acted negligently and conscious disregard [sic] of Plaintiff [sic] rights and safety negligently causing harm to Plaintiff. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial.”

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).)

“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 Ct. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166 (footnote omitted).) Punitive damages may be recoverable even in negligence cases if the plaintiff can make a showing that the defendant’s conduct goes beyond gross negligence and demonstrates a knowing and reckless disregard for the rights of others. Nolin v. National Convenience Stores, Inc. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 279, 286.

Before filing a motion to strike, the moving party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading demurred to and sought to be stricken in person or by telephone for the purposes of determining whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of an amended pleading that would resolve the issues in argued in the demurrer and motion to strike. (See Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 430.41; 435.5.)

Defendant claims they attempted to obtain a stipulation from Plaintiff to strike his demand for punitive damages and received no response. (Motion, p. 1.) However, Defendant provides no evidence of how they attempted to discuss the matter with Plaintiff. This is insufficient under Code of Civ. Proc., section 430.41, subd. (a), which requires that the parties meet in person or by telephone. Failure to confer, however, is not a basis for denying the motion to strike.

Defendant seeks to strike Plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages in paragraph 60 of his Complaint on the grounds that there is no legal authority warranting punitive damages for negligence cases and that the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint are conclusory.

Plaintiff’s Complaint states that Plaintiff was a “patron and temporary resident of QUALITY INN SUITES (“QIS”) in Orlando, Florida.” (Compl., ¶11.) Plaintiff needed to go downstairs and took the stairs because the elevators were broken. (Id., ¶12.) As Plaintiff descended the stairs, he slipped and fell on the stairs, sustaining injuries to his hand, back, lower extremities, and teeth. (Id., ¶¶13-15.) Defendant allegedly failed to meet its duty to use care not to cause injury to others and failed to correct and warn of the wet and slippery condition of the stairs. (Id., ¶¶35-39.)

Plaintiff’s Complaint has not demonstrated facts sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges he fell due to Defendant’s failure to correct and warn of the wet, slippery condition of the stairs. There are no facts to show that Defendant acted in a way that was so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched, or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people. Additionally, there are no facts to show Defendant engaged in conduct beyond gross negligence or demonstrated a knowing, reckless disregard for the rights of others. Absent additional facts, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff sufficiently pled punitive damages.