Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22STCV14036, Date: 2022-07-29 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: July 29, 2022

Case Name: Esparza v. Conagra Brands, Inc., et al.

Case No.: 20STCV37014  

Matter: Motion to Strike

Moving Party: Defendant Centrome, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiff Roland Esparza

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion to Strike is denied.  An Answer is to be filed within 

twenty days.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

On March 2, 2022, Plaintiff Roland Esparza filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Defendants Conagra Brands, Inc., The Vons Companies, Inc., and Does 1-50 for (1) Strict Product Liability—Manufacturing Defect, (2) Strict Product Liability—Design Defect, (3) Strict Product Liability—Failure to Warn, (4) Negligence, and (5) Breach of Implied Warranties.  Plaintiff alleges that he used butter spray manufactured, distributed, or sold by Defendants and that this butter spray contains diacetyl, acetyl propionyl, and/or other hazardous food flavoring components dangerous to the lungs.

Defendant Centrome, Inc. has been identified as Doe 2.

Defendant Centrome, Inc. seeks to strike the SAC’s allegations as to punitive damages because malicious, oppressive, or fraudulent conduct and involvement by a managing agent, director, or officer are not properly pled.

The Motion is denied because Plaintiff pleads that Defendant was aware of the respiratory effects of diacetyl and acetyl propionyl, but chose to manufacture them anyway.  Further, it might be inferred that the decision to sell these chemicals was ratified by a managing agent, director, or officer. 

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.