Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV00810, Date: 2023-02-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00810    Hearing Date: February 22, 2023    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     February 22, 2023                               TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         NANNETTE LEE, an individual, v. WHF INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive.

CASE NO.:                 22AHCV00810

MOTION TO STRIKE

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Wing Hop Fung Ginseng, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY:      Plaintiff Nannette Lee

SERVICE:                              Filed December 21, 2022

OPPOSITION:                       Filed February 8, 2023

REPLY:                                   Filed February 14, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Nannette Lee’s (“Plaintiff”) slip and fall claim against Defendant WHF Inc. (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges on or about April 20, 2021, Plaintiff was shopping at Defendant’s Monterey Park location. Plaintiff alleges that a slippery and wet surface on the floor caused her to fall and sustain injuries. Plaintiff alleges the unsafe condition was negligently allowed to occur by Defendant’s employees. Plaintiff filed this complaint on October 12, 2022, alleging one cause of action for negligence.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendant’s motion to strike is GRANTED with leave to amend.

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

            Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages.

             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). “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.” (Turman v. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.)

            “The statute expressly defines the terms—malice, oppression, and conduct—for the purposes of determining the viability of the claim 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.’ (§ 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.’ (§ 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.’ ” (§ 3294, subd. (c)(3).) (Today’s IV, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1137, 1193.)

            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 my not be pleaded generally.” (Today’s IV, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, supra, 83 Cal.App.5th at p. 1193.)

            Plaintiff alleges that Defendant allowed the existence of a slippery and wet surface and failed to correct the dangerous condition. (Complaint ¶¶ 9-10.) Plaintiff also alleges that none of Defendant’s employees came to help Plaintiff or clean the hazard for over 30 minutes. (Id. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff’s primary argument is that Defendant acted with “willful and conscious disregard” by failing to clean the wet floor. Plaintiff’s claims, however, fall short of alleging that Defendant acted with oppression, fraud, or malice. Plaintiff’s claims are general allegations that Defendant acted negligently. Plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to sustain a prayer for punitive damages.

            Defendant’s motion to strike is granted.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motion to strike is GRANTED with leave 20 days to amend.

            Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:   February 22, 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.  Parties intending to appear are strongly encouraged to appear remotely.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org