Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 23STCV05199, Date: 2024-12-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV05199, Date: 2024-12-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV05199 Hearing Date: December 3, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION TO STRIKE

Hearing Date: 12/3/24

CASE NO./NAME: 23STCV05199 JENNIFER ROSE SIMMONS, et al. vs LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY et al.

Moving Party: Defendant Robert De La Torre

Responding Party: Plaintiff¿

Notice: Sufficient¿

Ruling: Granted with leave to amend

Background

Plaintiffs’ operative Fifth Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) alleges that on March 14, 2022, at the Redline train platform in Los Angeles, passenger Kimberly Garrido was trapped outside a moving train when her dog’s leash became stuck in the closing door. Despite her efforts to alert personnel, the train moved, dragging her along the platform and causing her to crash into concrete pilings, resulting in severe injuries and ultimately her death on December 4, 2022.

Defendant Robert De La Torre moves the Court for an order striking the following portions of the FAC: (1) Paragraph 17 in its entirety; (2) Paragraph 18 in its entirety; (3) Paragraph 19 in its entirety; and (4) the portion of the prayer at lines 11:13-14, which reads, “For punitive damages against Defendants ROBERT DE LA TORRE and DOES 1-100.”

Pertinent parts of the operative complaint pertaining to Defendant De La Torre’s punitive damages are as follows:

The horrifying fall occurred in Los Angeles, California, on the lower level of the Redline train platform located at 7th Street and Figueroa on March 14, 2022, at approximately 9:58 p.m. At this time and place, Kimberly Garrido was a passenger on the train owned by DEFENDANT METRO, maintained by DOES 1-100, and operated by its employee, Defendant ROBERT DE LA TORRE. Kimberly Garrido attempted to exit the train onto the platform possessed and controlled by DEFENDANT METRO. The train door suddenly and unexpectedly closed, and the leash her dog was attached to remained in the door. While Kimberly Garrido was outside of the train car with the leash and her dog inside the train car, she tried to bang on the door to alert the train personnel that she and the leash were trapped by the train car door. However, no train personnel responded to the desperate cries of Kimberly Garrido, and the train began to leave the platform. As the train moved forward, Kimberly Garrido attempted to desperately detach the leash; however, she was unable to do so. With the leash still attached around her waist and screaming for help, Kimberly Garrido fell face first onto the platform and was forcefully dragged down the platform approximately ten (10) feet when the leash finally and violently snapped. Kimberly Garrido’s body continued down the platform approximately another ten (10) feet due to the inertia created by the train. She violently crashed head-first into the concrete pilings on the platform, sustaining severe injuries to her head and body. Kimberly Garrido succumbed to these injuries on December 4, 2022. Defendants DE LA TORRE and DOES 1-100 knew of the serious and substantial likelihood that an accident like this could occur.

(FAC ¶ 2)

Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Defendants ROBERT DE LA TORRE and DOES 1-100 engaged in said wrongful conduct with a conscious disregard of the dangers such misconduct would and did create for the rights and safety of the public, including decedent Kimberly Garrido. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe, and thereon allege, on the date of the incident on March 14, 2022, ROBERT DE LA TORRE and DOES 1-100 acted with malice in that they engaged in despicable conduct in conscious disregard of the rights, safety, and welfare of decedent Kimberly Garrido and Plaintiffs by reason of, including but not limited to, knowingly and recklessly:

a. Failing to properly maintain an awareness of its surroundings;
b. Failing to exercise ordinary care for the safety of passengers;
c. Failing to provide adequate safety/preventative equipment;
d. Failing to provide adequate warnings;
e. Failing to properly train agents and employees;
f. Failing to use the utmost care and diligence for safe carriage, to provide everything for that purpose, and to exercise to that end a reasonable degree of skill;
g. Failing to warn of, and make safe, dangerous conditions existing on the premises.

(FAC ¶ 17)

Defendants, and each of them, had prior knowledge of the dangers and risks that such misconduct would and did create, including causing serious injury or death to members of the public. Defendants ROBERT DE LA TORRE and DOES 1 through 100 further had full knowledge of the dangers associated with an accident of this sort. Despite such knowledge, Defendants ROBERT DE LA TORRE and DOES 1 through 100 knowingly and recklessly continued operating the Redline rail cars without proper warning, safety, and preventative equipment. Defendants continued engaging in such misconduct in a willful and conscious disregard for the rights and safety of the public in the interests of gaining financial profit and political power. Considering the damages caused to decedent Kimberly Garrido, it was highly foreseeable to any reasonable person or entity that Defendants would cause serious injury or death to members of the public. Despite such knowledge and understanding, said Defendants knowingly and recklessly continued to operate the Redline railcar.

(FAC ¶ 18)

Defendants ROBERT DE LA TORRE and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, knowingly and recklessly engaged in these actions and omissions in conscious disregard for public safety. Said Defendants were on actual and constructive notice of the dangers said acts created to the public, and Defendants DOES 1 through 100 had the power to make changes that would eliminate such dangers to the public, but these Defendants, and each of them, did not take any corrective measures in conscious disregard for public safety. Said misconduct by Defendants ROBERT DE LA TORRE and DOES 1 through 100, and each of them, by knowingly or recklessly creating a substantial risk and high probability of injury or death, was oppressive, despicable, highly reprehensible, and done in conscious disregard for the rights and safety of the public, including decedent Kimberly Garrido and the Plaintiffs. Said acts and omissions were ratified by managerial and elected employees including DOES 1 through 100 and were carried out with the consent of the officers, directors, and/or managing agents and elected officials of Defendant METRO, including DOES 1 through 100. As such, the imposition of punitive damages against individual Defendants ROBERT DE LA TORRE and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, is appropriate.

(FAC ¶ 19)

Legal Standard¿

The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436(a).) The court may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. (CCP § 436(b).)

The grounds for a motion to strike are that the pleading has irrelevant, false or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws. (CCP § 436.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (CCP § 437.)

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).) Clear and convincing evidence requires proof making the existence of a fact highly probable— falls between the “more likely than not” standard commonly referred to as a preponderance of the evidence and the more rigorous standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 995.)

“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 willful and 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. Conscious disregard for the safety of another may be sufficient where the defendant is aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his or her conduct and he or she willfully fails to avoid such consequences. (Pfeifer v.John Crane, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1299.) ‘Despicable’ is a powerful term that refers to circumstances that are ‘base,’ ‘vile,’ or ‘contemptible.’ (College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 725.)¿¿¿

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.).)¿¿

Discussion

While portions of the FAC are pled with specificity, others merely assert legal conclusions. Plaintiffs describe the circumstances surrounding the incident with vivid detail; however, the FAC does not contain any allegation that Defendant De La Torre knew the dog leash attached to the decedent’s waist was trapped by the train car door and nevertheless intentionally drove the train forward or acted with willful and conscious disregard for the obvious risk that the train would drag the decedent along the platform.

While Plaintiff alleges that Defendant engaged in wrongful conduct with a conscious disregard for the dangers such misconduct created for the rights and safety of the public and had prior knowledge of the risks that such misconduct could result in serious injury or death, these allegations amount to legal conclusions rather than factual assertions. Further, the FAC employs terms such as "conscious disregard," "despicable conduct," and "malice," which align with the legal standard for punitive damages under California Civil Code § 3294 but fails to link these claims to specific acts or omissions by Defendant. Because punitive damages must be pled with specificity, Plaintiff must allege specific facts showing what Defendant knew, when he knew it, and how he deliberately disregarded those risks. These factual allegations are absent here.

While Plaintiff attempts to allege specific instances of malice, such as Defendant "failed to properly maintain an awareness of its surroundings," "failed to exercise ordinary care for the safety of passengers," and "failed to provide adequate safety/preventative equipment" (FAC ¶ 17), these allegations primarily describe acts of negligence, not the willful and conscious disregard for rights or safety required to support a claim for punitive damages. Negligence, even gross negligence, is defined as a failure to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances. In contrast, punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294 require conduct that demonstrates malice, oppression, or fraud. Malice specifically entails either an intent to harm or despicable conduct undertaken with a willful and conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others. This level of intent or willfulness is fundamentally distinct from the mere carelessness or inattentiveness alleged in Plaintiff's claims.

Although this is Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Complaint, this marks the first motion to strike filed against Plaintiff. Under Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348, leave to amend should be granted where there is a reasonable possibility that a plaintiff can cure defects in the pleading.

Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential for Plaintiff to provide additional facts clarifying Defendant’s alleged conduct and intent, there is a reasonable possibility that the deficiencies can be addressed through amendment. Therefore, the motion to strike is granted with leave to amend within 30 days.

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 (encouraged) 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.