Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV00651, Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22AHCV00651 Hearing Date: December 6, 2023 Dept: X
Tentative Ruling
Judge Joel L. Lofton,
Department X
HEARING DATE: December 6, 2023 TRIAL
DATE: May 21, 2024
CASE: ROBERT VILLA, an
individual; KATY VILLA, an individual, v. ADVANCED NUTRIENTS, INC., a Delaware
corporation; ADVANCED NUTRIENTS US LLC, a Washington limited liability company;
ADVANCED NUTRIENT SOLUTIONS NW, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; ADVANCED
NUTRIENTS LTD., a Canadian corporation; UNITED ELECTRIC WHOLESALE & TRADING
INC. dba UNITED HYDRO & GARDENING SUPPLY, a California corporation; STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, a government entity; and DOES 1-100, inclusive.
CASE NO.: 22AHCV00651
MOTION
TO STRIKE
MOVING PARTY: Defendants Advanced Nutrients US
LLC and Advanced Nutrients LTD ) (“Defendants”)
RESPONDING PARTY: No
response filed.
SERVICE: Filed October 18, 2023
RELIEF
REQUESTED
The Advanced Nutrients Defendants
move to strike Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of
Plaintiffs Robert Villa and Katy Villa (“Plaintiffs”) claim that on September
7, 2021, Robert Villa was in a single-vehicle accident. Plaintiffs allege that
as a result of the accident, pH Up, spilled onto Robert Villa, causing chemical
burns, disfigurement, and blindness.
Plaintiffs filed a third amended
complaint (“TAC”) on September 18, 2023, alleging seven causes of action for
(1) strict product liability, (2) negligence, (3) failure to warn, (4)
negligent recall, (5) dangerous condition of public property, (6) loss of
consortium, and (7) violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for
punitive damages is GRANTED.
At hearing Plaintiffs bear the burden of demonstrating a
reasonable possibility of curing this defect.
LEGAL STANDARD
Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading
may serve and file a notice of motion to strike a pleading or any part
thereof. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1).) 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, subd. (a).) The court may
also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with
California law, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 436, subd. (b).) An immaterial or irrelevant allegation is one that is
not essential to the statement of a claim or defense; is neither pertinent to
nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense; or a demand for
judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the
complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., 431.10, subd. (b).) The grounds for
moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial
notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)
DISCUSSION
Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages.
Defendants’ two previous motions to strike were granted with leave to amend.
Punitive
damages may be imposed where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that
the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Civ.
Code, § 3294, subd. (a). A plaintiff seeking punitive damages “must include
specific factual allegations showing that defendant's conduct was oppressive,
fraudulent, or malicious to support a claim for punitive damages. [Citation.]
Punitive damages may not be pleaded generally.” (Today’s IV, Inc. v. Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th
1137, 1193.)
Civil Code
section 3294 provides a definition for each basis for punitive damages. 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).) 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).) Fraud is defined as “an intentional
misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the
defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving
a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(3).)
In
their TAC, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants acted with malice, oppression, and
fraud. (TAC ¶¶ 45, 45j, 45l.) However, Plaintiffs’ allegations are general and
conclusory statements. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants knew of previous
incidents but failed to correct the design of their product. (TAC ¶ 45d.)
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants improperly marketed the product and failed to
provide proper warning. (TAC ¶ 45e.) These allegations, however, do not plead
that Defendants acted with malice, oppression, or fraud. Plaintiffs also allege
that Defendants “affirmatively misled them as to the risks of transporting the
container” but do not allege any factual statement supporting their claim. (TAC
¶ 35.) Plaintiffs’ TAC fails to allege facts sufficient to support a claim for
punitive damages. Further, Plaintiffs failed to file an opposition to the
present motion.
“Leave to amend should
be granted if the plaintiff demonstrates that there is a reasonable possibility
a defect can be cured by amendment.” (State Dept. of State Hospitals v.
Superior Corut (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 1069, 1076.) At the hearing on this
motion to strike, Plaintiffs have the burden of establishing a reasonable
possibility of curing this defect.
CONCLUSION
Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for
punitive damages is GRANTED.
At hearing Plaintiffs bear the burden of demonstrating a
reasonable possibility of curing this defect.
Dated: December 6,
2023 ___________________________________
Joel
L. Lofton
Judge
of the Superior Court
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court
indicating their
intention to submit. alhdeptx@lacourt.org