Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV01372, Date: 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV01372    Hearing Date: May 24, 2023    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     May 24, 2023                          TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         TIMOTHY HUANG v. MARIA GAPAC, an individual; JULIE WU, M.D., an INDIVIDUAL; DR. MING-WEI WU, an individual; MING-WEI WIN, INC., a Nevada corporation, doing business as PROFESSIONAL WOUND SPECIALISTS; JULIE WU, INC., a Nevada corporation doing business as HUMANITY HEALTH CENTER; and DOES 1 through 30, inclusive.

CASE NO.:                 22AHCV01372

MOTION TO STRIKE

MOVING PARTY:               Defendants Maria Gapac, Julie Wu, M.D., Dr. Ming-Wei Wu, Ming Wei Wu, Inc., and Julie Wu, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY:      Plaintiff Timothy Huang

SERVICE:                              Filed April 13, 2023

OPPOSITION:                       Filed May 5, 2023

REPLY:                                   Filed May 19, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Defendants move to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Timothy Huang’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that he was jabbed by multiple hypodermic needles handed to him by Maria Gapac (“Gapac”). Plaintiff alleges that he is an employee of The UPS Store. Plaintiff alleges that on November 29, 2022, Gapac entered the store and handed Plaintiff a plastic bag for shipping. Plaintiff alleges that he was jabbed by the needles and began to bleed. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Gapac, Julie Wu, M.D., Dr. Ming-Wei Wu, Ming Wei Wu Inc., and Julie Wu, Inc. (“Defendants”) refused to disclose the nature of the contents of the needles. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) on March 20, 2023, alleging five causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) battery, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent supervision.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendants’ 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

            Defendants move 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). 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.)

            In opposition to the present motion, Plaintiff asserts that he has sufficiently alleged facts sufficient to sustain a prayer for punitive damages. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to comply with federal regulations pertaining to the transportation and packaging of hazardous materials. (FAC ¶ 23.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants allowed, supervised, or encouraged the inadequate packing of the materials being sent. (Id. ¶ 29.) However, although the FAC summarily alleges that Defendants engaged in malice, fraud, or oppression (id. ¶ 39), Plaintiff’s allegations are not sufficient to sustain a prayer for punitive damages.

            Plaintiff’s allegations at most, can be read as alleging gross negligence or recklessness. However, “California does not recognize punitive damages for conduct that is grossly negligent or reckless.” (Colombo v. BRP US Inc. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1442, 1456, fn. 8.) Thus, Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to seek a prayer for punitive damages.

CONCLUSION

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

            Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:   May 24, 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