Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV31108, Date: 2024-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV31108    Hearing Date: March 14, 2024    Dept: 27

Complaint: 9/22/22

Hon. Lee S. Arian¿¿ 

Department 27¿¿ 

Tentative Ruling¿ 

¿ 

Hearing Date:           3/14/2024 at 1:30 p.m.¿¿¿ 

Case No./Name.:      22STCV31108 EMERITA T. CORTES DE TORRES vs YUM YUM DONUT SHOPS, INC

Motion:                    PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Moving Party:           Plaintiff

Responding Party:    YUM YUM Donut Shops

Notice:                     Sufficient¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

Ruling:                     PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND IS DENIED. 

Background 

On September 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed the present action alleging that she tripped over a pothole in the parking lot of a Winchell’s Donut shop. The complaint articulates a single cause of action encompassing premises liability and negligence, with a demand for both general and special damages. Throughout the discovery process, Plaintiff has uncovered new information, leading to her belief that there are grounds to pursue punitive damages. Consequently, Plaintiff now moves the court for leave to amend to file her first amended complaint to include a claim for punitive damages.

Legal Standard¿ 

Leave to amend is permitted at the court’s discretion upon any terms that may be just.  Cal Code Civ Procedure § 473. The statute is liberally construed to permit amendment of the pleadings. Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 760.  

While leave to amend is liberally granted, the Court has discretion to deny the motion where the pleading is deficient as a matter of law and the defect cannot not be cured by further appropriate amendment. California Casualty General Ins. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280-281. 

Analysis And Conclusion

Plaintiff discovered that: (1) the pothole had been present for at least a year prior to the accident; (2) Defendant's employees claimed to conduct daily inspections of the parking lot; (3) these employees denied noticing the pothole; and (4) there are no records of these parking lot inspections. (See Motion, p. 3-4.) Plaintiff suggests this implies either the inspections were not conducted as claimed, or the employees did indeed observe the pothole but failed to act. Plaintiff argues that both scenarios indicate a conscious disregard for the safety of others, qualifying as the "malice" necessary for punitive damages. (See Motion, p. 9-10.)

The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s argument. 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).)  “Malice’ means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” (Civil Code section 3294 (c)(1).) Under the statute, malice does not require actual intent to harm. However, negligence, gross negligence, or even recklessness is not sufficient to support an award of punitive damages. Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1210-121. Plaintiff must prove that the defendant was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his or her conduct and that with such awareness defendant willfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences. (Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 89.)

Plaintiff’s allegations, if proven, show that Defendant's employees were negligent or grossly negligent at best, but fail to specifically demonstrate that the employees were aware of the probable dangerous consequences and, despite this awareness, deliberately and willfully failed to avoid those consequences.

Moreover, a claim for punitive damages against a corporate employer requires factual allegations that the corporation itself, rather than a given employee, ratified or authorized the malicious and oppressive conduct. Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (b); Cruz v. HomeBase (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 160, 167; see Wilson v. Southern California Edison Co. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 123, 164 (law does not impute every employee' s malice to a corporation]).  

Plaintiff seeks to amend her complaint to include punitive damages against Yum Yum Donut Shops, Inc., a corporation. However, Plaintiff’s proposed FAC did not include any allegations claiming that Yum Yum's managing agents ratified or authorized malicious actions by its employees, if any. It also does not appear reasonably likely that Plaintiff can reasonably can plead such allegations. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to amend is DENIED.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

· If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.¿¿¿¿¿
 

· Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue. 

¿¿¿¿¿ 

· If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.¿¿¿¿