Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 20STCV41954, Date: 2025-05-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV41954    Hearing Date: May 6, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Background

On October 30, 2020, Plaintiffs Gloria Taylor and James Barnett filed this action against defendants Satsai Hotel Investment Corporation dba Budget Inn Bellflower, Girish K. Solanki, and related entities. Plaintiffs allege that they were exposed to bedbugs during their stay at defendants’ hotel between November 1 and November 5, 2018, resulting in physical and emotional injuries. The complaint asserts six causes of action, including battery, negligence, and fraud, and seeks punitive damages based on alleged “oppression, fraud, and malice” under Civil Code section 3294.

Defendants move to strike all references to punitive damages in the complaint on the ground that Plaintiffs have failed to plead sufficient specific facts to support such a claim, specifically the portions of the complaint identified below.

1.  Page 8: lines 22-28: “Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that the aforesaid conduct of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, was carried out with a willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ right to be free from such tortious behavior, such as to constitute oppression, fraud, or malice pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294, and that an officer, director, or managing agent of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, authorized or ratified the wrongful acts of the employees of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, entitling Plaintiffs to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish and set an example of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20.”

2.  Page 12: lines 24-28: “Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that the aforesaid conduct of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, was carried out with a willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ right to be free from such tortious behavior, such as to constitute oppression, fraud or malice pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294, and that an officer, director, or managing agent of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, authorized or ratified the wrongful acts of the employees of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, entitling Plaintiffs to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish and set an example of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20.”

3.  Page 14-15: lines 26-4: “Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that the aforesaid conduct of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, was carried out with a willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ right to be free from such tortious behavior, such as to constitute oppression, fraud or malice pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294, and that an officer, director, or managing agent of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, authorized or ratified the wrongful acts of the employees of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, entitling Plaintiffs to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish and set an example of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20.”

4.  Page 17: lines 6-12: “Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that the aforesaid conduct of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, was carried out with a willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ right to be free from such tortious behavior, such as to constitute oppression, fraud or malice pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294, and that an officer, director, or managing agent of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, authorized or ratified the wrongful acts of the employees of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20, entitling Plaintiffs to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish and set an example of Defendants, and DOES 1 through 20.”

5.  Page 19: line 2: “For punitive damages.”

The motion is unopposed.

Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure section 436 authorizes the Court to strike any “irrelevant, false, or improper matter” from a pleading. California courts may strike allegations of punitive damages where the complaint fails to plead facts sufficient to support a finding of oppression, fraud, or malice under Civil Code section 3294.

To state a claim for punitive damages against a corporate employer, Plaintiffs must not only plead conduct amounting to “oppression, fraud, or malice,” but must also allege that such conduct was performed, authorized, or ratified by an officer, director, or managing agent. (Civ. Code § 3294(b).) furthermore, a plaintiff must assert facts with specificity to support a conclusion that a defendant acted with oppression, fraud, or malice.¿ To wit, there is a heightened pleading requirement regarding a claim for punitive damages.¿ (Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1041-1042.).)¿¿ 

Here, the allegations in the complaint are wholly conclusory and also not pled with specificity. Plaintiffs recite the language of Civil Code section 3294 but fail to plead any specific facts identifying who allegedly engaged in, authorized, or ratified the wrongful conduct, or how the conduct amounts to malice, oppression, or fraud. The complaint does not identify any corporate officer, director, or managing agent with actual knowledge of or participation in the alleged tortious acts. Courts have consistently held that such generalized and vague allegations are insufficient to support punitive damages. (See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 29 [“vague, conclusory allegations of fraud or falsity may not be rescued by the rule of liberal construction.”])

Because the complaint does not set forth specific facts demonstrating despicable conduct carried out with conscious disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights and safety, nor allege involvement by a corporate officer, director, or managing agent, the punitive damages allegations are improper and subject to being stricken. Furthermore, Plaintiff did not oppose this motion and did not show how successful amendment to the complaint might be possible. Accordingly, the motion is granted without leave to amend.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.