Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 22STCV04087, Date: 2024-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV04087    Hearing Date: March 21, 2024    Dept: 31

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 31

HEARING DATE:     March 21, 2024                      TRIAL DATE:  March 10, 2024

CASE:                         Caiden Caldwell, a minor, as Successor-in-Interest to the Estate of Darrell Caldwell p/k/a Drakeo the Ruler v. Live Nation World Wide, Inc., et al.

CASE NO.:                 22STCV04087

MOTION TO STRIKE

MOTION TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY DEADLINES

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant University of Southern California  

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          FACTUAL AND PROCEDRUAL BACKGROUND

            This is a wrongful death case.  On December 18, 2021, Darrell Caldwell (AKA Drakeo the Ruler) (“Mr. Caldwell” or “Decedent”) was stabbed backstage at the “Once Upon A Time in LA” music festival (“Music Festival”).  Mr. Caldwell was 28 years old, and a hip hop recording artist.  He was stabbed and killed moments before going on stage. 

            In the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff Caiden Caldwell (Decedent’s son) as the Successor-in-Interest to the Estate of Darrell Caldwell, by and through his guardian ad litem Tianna Purtue alleges: “Mr. Caldwell’s lynching and eventual death at the hand of a violent mob of purported members of a Los Angeles based Bloods gang, while Mr. Caldwell made his way through the backstage area of the Banc of California performers stage, where he was scheduled to perform just minutes following the violent attack, was a result of a complete and abject failure of all Defendants to implement proper safety measures in order to ensure the safety and well being of the artists whom they invited and hired to their music festival.”  (FAC ¶ 2.)  Plaintiffs sued Defendant University of Southern California (“USC”), along with numerous security companies, for failing to keep the backstage area secure and safe.

            On or about February 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant action, and filed a First Amended Complaint on or about August 7, 2023, alleging causes of action for (1) Negligence-Wrongful Death; (2) Wrongful Death-Premises Liability; and (3) Negligent Hiring/Retention/Supervision Training-Wrongful Death against all defendants. 

            On January 30, 2024, USC filed a motion to strike punitive damages allegations and the request for medical expenses from the FAC.

             On February 26, 2024, USC also filed a motion to continue the discovery deadlines to the current trial date of March 10, 2025.

            Both motions are unopposed.   

II.        MOTION TO STRIKE

a.       Legal Standard

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a motion to strike the whole pleading or any part thereof.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1322, subd. (b).)¿ On a motion to strike, the court may: (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, subds. (a)-(b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782.)¿¿ 

“The grounds for a motion to strike are limited to matters appearing on the face of the challenged pleading or matters which must or may be judicially noticed. (§ 437, subd. (a); Evid. Code, §§ 451, 452.).” (Garcia v. Sterling (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 17, 20.)¿ 

b.      Application

Judicial Notice

USC requests judicial notice of the First Amended Complaint in the related action, Darrylene Corniel v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., et al., LASC Case No. 22STCV07737, which demonstrate that Darrylene Corniel is the personal representative of the Estate of Darrell Caldwell.  (Request for Judicial Notice (RJN), 1.)

The unopposed request is GRANTED.  (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

Meet and Confer¿¿ 

¿ 

Defense counsel has satisfied this the meet and confer requirement.¿(Declaration of Janine F. Cohen, ¶¶ 5-16.)

Analysis

USC seeks an order striking punitive damages allegations from the FAC because punitive damages are not permitted under the wrongful death statute.  The court agrees.  “The California statutes and decisions . . . have been interpreted to bar the recovery of punitive damages in a wrongful death action.”  (Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976) 17 Cal.3d 425, 450; see also Pease v. Beech Aircraft Corp. (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 450, 460-462. “The damages recoverable in [wrongful death] are expressly limited to those not recoverable in a survival action under Code of Civil Procedure section 377.34.”  (Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Center (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1264); see also Code Civ. Proc., § 377.61 (“In an action under this article, damages may be awarded that, under all the circumstances of the case, may be just, but may not include damages recoverable under Section 377.34.”). Code of Civil Procedure section 377.34 provides for the recovery of “any penalties or punitive or exemplary damages that the decedent would have been entitled to recover had the decedent lived.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.34, subd. (a).)  Thus, an heir suing for wrongful death cannot recover punitive damages under California law.  (Ford Motor Co. v. Superior Court (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 748, 751.)  This is true even where the decedent’s death was caused by the defendant’s reckless and wanton misconduct.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 377.34, 377.61; Doak v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1968) 257 Cal.App.2d 825, 834-36.)   Here, Plaintiff has brought a wrongful death action.   Punitive damages are not recoverable.  Accordingly, USC is entitled to an order striking the request for punitive damages and all allegations supporting the request from the FAC.

USC also requests an order striking the claim for medical expenses because such damages were suffered by the Decedent, not by Plaintiff.  As such, a claim for medical expenses belongs to the estate and must be brought in a survival action on behalf of the estate.  The court agrees.  “[U]nder California’s survival law, an estate can recover . . . the deceased plaintiff’s lost wages, medical expenses, and any other pecuniary losses incurred before death.”  (Williams v. The Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack of California (2018) 27 Cal. App. 5th 225, 236, quoting County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal. 4th 292, 304; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 377.30, 377.34.)  Damages recoverable in a survival action are not recoverable in a wrongful death action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.61.)

 Here, the FAC does not allege a survival cause of action.  (See generally, FAC.)  And even if Plaintiff had alleged a survival cause of action, he lacks standing to seek such damages on behalf of the estate.  A cause of action which “survives the death of the person entitled to commence an action or proceeding . . . may be commenced by the decedent’s personal representative or, if none, by the decedent’s successor in interest.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 377.30.)  Here, Decedent’s mother, Darrylene Corniel is the personal representative of Decedent’s estate.  (RJN 1, ¶ 20, Exs. A and B.)  Accordingly, USC is entitled to an order striking the request for medical expenses from the FAC.

c.       Conclusion

The unopposed motion to strike is GRANTED.  Paragraphs 82 and 83 of the FAC and Paragraph 3 of the Prayer of the FAC is stricken. 

Leave to amend is DENIED.

Defendant USC to give notice.

III.      CONTINUE DISCOVERY DEADLINES

a.       Legal Standard

Except as otherwise provided, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for trial of the action.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a).)¿ On motion of any party, the court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, or to have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set.¿ This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating a good faith effort at informal resolution.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).)¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ 

The court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity and the reasons for the discovery, (2) the diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier, (3) any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party, and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b).)

b.      Application

On February 15, 2024, the court granted USC’s ex parte application to continue the trial date.  Pursuant to USC’s request, the jury trial scheduled for May 20, 2024 was continued to March 10, 2025.  However, because a court cannot continue related discovery dates to the new trial date by ex parte motion, USC was directed to file a noticed motion.  Accordingly, the only issue to be decided is whether discovery dates should also be continued to the new trial date. 

USC argues the discovery deadlines should be continued because USC has only recently been added as a defendant in this action and has therefore not been able to complete discovery.  The court agrees.  USC is entitled to defend against Plaintiff’s claims.  Given that lack of opposition to this motion, no prejudice will result from continuing the discovery deadlines.

a.       Conclusion

The unopposed motion to continue discovery deadlines is GRANTED.  All discovery deadlines, including expert discovery, are continued to the current trial date of March 10, 2025.

Defendant USC to give notice.

IV.       DISPOSITIONS

            The unopposed motion to strike is granted.  Paragraphs 82 and 83 of the FAC and Paragraph 3 of the Prayer of the FAC is stricken.  Leave to amend is denied.   

The unopposed motion to continue discovery deadlines is granted.  All discovery deadlines, including expert discovery, are continued to the current trial date of March 10, 2025.

            Defendant USC to give notice. 

Dated:   March 21, 2024                                                            ___________________________________

                                                                                    Kerry Bensinger

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court