Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 24NNCV01420, Date: 2024-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV01420    Hearing Date: October 4, 2024    Dept: NCB

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

 

 

JANE DOE,

 

                        Plaintiff,

            v.

 

ARTHUR WUTHONG SHI,

 

                        Defendant.

 

  Case No.:  24NNCV01420

 

Hearing Date:  October 4, 2024

 

 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

MOTION TO STRIKE

 

 

BACKGROUND

A.   Allegations

Plaintiff Jane Doe (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on May 4, 2022, she carpooled with a group of friends, which included Defendant Arthur Wuthong Shi (“Defendant”), to attend a gathering at a friend’s house.  Plaintiff alleges that she was a minor at the time of the incident.  She alleges that she did not consume alcohol, but Defendant consumed alcohol while at the gathering.  Plaintiff alleges that while carpooling back, Defendant proceeded to put his hand up her shirt before grabbing and fondling her breasts.  She alleges that Defendant then put his hands in her pants and began touching her vaginal area before inserting his fingers into her vagina.  Plaintiff alleges that during the incident, she was paralyzed by fear and shock. 

The complaint, filed May 6, 2024, alleges causes of action for: (1) sexual battery; (2) IIED; and (3) negligence.

B.    Motion on Calendar

On July 5, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to strike portions of the complaint.

On September 18, 2024 at 11:25 a.m., Plaintiff filed a 6-page opposition brief.  That same day at 11:27 a.m., Plaintiff filed a 12-page opposition brief.  The later-filed opposition brief attaches an exhibit of the proof of service of the summons.  The Court will consider the later-filed opposition as the operative opposition in response to the motion. 

On September 23, 2024, Defendant filed a reply brief.

DISCUSSION

            Defendant moves to strike the 3rd cause of action for negligence in the complaint on the ground that it improperly alleges a dollar amount of damages for personal injuries and thus is not drawn in conformity with the law.  Defendant relies on CCP § 425.10.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that she has not “stated” an amount of damages because her demand gives a “range” of damages to be determined at trial.  (Opp. at 3:18-25.) 

            CCP § 425.10 states:

(a) A complaint or cross-complaint shall contain both of the following:

(1) A statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.

(2) A demand for judgment for the relief to which the pleader claims to be entitled. If the recovery of money or damages is demanded, the amount demanded shall be stated.

(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), where an action is brought to recover actual or punitive damages for personal injury or wrongful death, the amount demanded shall not be stated, but the complaint shall comply with Section 422.30 and, in a limited civil case, with subdivision (b) of Section 70613 of the Government Code.

(CCP § 425.10.)  “Section 425.10, subdivision (b) prohibits a personal injury plaintiff from stating in the complaint the amount of damages claimed in order to protect defendants in these actions from adverse publicity resulting from inflated damage claims.”  (Barragan v. Banco BCH (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 283, 303; see also Austin v. Regents of University of California (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 354, 359 [“Under subdivision (b) of section 425.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no dollar amount of damages may be stated in an action for personal injuries.”].) 

            In the 3rd cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant owed Plaintiff (a minor) a duty of care to refrain from causing her harm or injuries, but Defendant breached that duty by touching her breasts and private parts.  (Compl., ¶¶42-45.)  Plaintiff alleges that as a result of Defendant’s negligence, she has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial, but no less than $1,000,000.00.  (Id., ¶47.) 

The 3rd cause of action for negligence alleges a statement of damages.  While Plaintiff claims her allegations is merely a “range” and that damages will be determined at trial, she has nonetheless alleged a minimum claim of damages for a personal injury cause of action, which is improper.  The purpose of section 425.10 is to protect defendants in personal injury actions from adverse publicity resulting from prayers in complaints for greatly inflated damage claims bearing little relation to reasonable expectations of recovery.  (Plotitsa v. Superior Court (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 755, 771.)  As such, the motion to strike is granted with leave to amend.

In the reply brief, Defendant states that he has no objection to Plaintiff amending her complaint, but requests that the original complaint be sealed.  The request to seal the initial complaint was not properly made by way of a separate motion and, thus, will be denied. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant Arthur Wuthong Shi’s motion to strike portions of the complaint in the 3rd cause of action for negligence is granted with 20 days leave to amend. 

Defendant shall provide notice of this order.