Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV01756, Date: 2024-03-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01756, Date: 2024-03-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01756 Hearing Date: March 26, 2024 Dept: C

Paula G vs Claudio Gomez, et al

Case No. 22NWCV01756

Hearing Date: March 26, 2024 @ 9:30 AM

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Paula G’s Motion for Leave to Conduct Financial Discovery is GRANTED.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Background

Plaintiff Paula G. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint on December 29, 2022 alleging that while she was in the care of her foster parents, Defendants Claudio Gomez and Pamela Gomez, Plaintiff was sexually abused by Defendant Claudio Gomez. According to Plaintiff’s Complaint, the abuse began when Plaintiff was approximately 9 years old and continued until Plaintiff was approximately 18 years old.

Plaintiff moves for an order permitting discovery into Defendant Claudio Gomez’s (“Defendant”) financial condition on the grounds that there is a substantial probability that Plaintiff will prevail on her punitive damages claims pursuant to Civil Code §3295 and that a jury will find Defendant committed a Sexual Battery upon Plaintiff pursuant to Civil Code section 1708.5.

Legal Standard

Pretrial discovery of a defendant’s financial condition is generally not permitted.¿ (Civ. Code, § 3295(c); Jabro v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 754, 756.)¿ However, Civil Code section 3295(c) provides that “[u]pon motion by the plaintiff supported by appropriate affidavits and after a hearing, if the court deems a hearing to be necessary, the court may at any time enter an order permitting the discovery otherwise prohibited by this subdivision if the court finds, on the basis of the supporting and opposing affidavits presented, that the plaintiff has established that there is a substantial probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim pursuant to Section 3294.”¿ (Civ. Code, § 3295(c).)¿ “Such order shall not be considered to be a determination on the merits of the claim or any defense thereto and shall not be given in evidence or referred to at the trial.”¿ (Id.)¿“[B]efore a court may enter an order permitting discovery of a defendant’s financial condition, it must (1) weigh the evidence submitted in favor of and in opposition to motion for discovery, and (2) make a finding that it is very likely the plaintiff will prevail on his claim for punitive damages.”¿ (Jabro, supra, 95 Cal. App.4th at 758.)¿

In order to state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a complaint must set forth the elements as stated in the general punitive damage statute, Civil Code section 3294. (College Hospital, Inc. v. Super.Ct (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 721.)¿These statutory elements include allegations that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).)¿“Malice is defined in the statute as conduct 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.” (College Hospital, Inc., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 725 [examining Civ. Code section 3294, subd. (c)(1)].)¿“A conscious disregard of the safety of others may constitute malice within the meaning of section 3294 of the Civil Code.¿In order to justify an award of punitive damages on this basis, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his conduct, and that he willfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences.”¿(Taylor v. Super. Ct. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895-896.)¿

Discussion

Plaintiff moves for an order allowing discovery of Defendant’s financial condition on the grounds that there is a significant probability that Plaintiff will prevail on her demand for punitive damages. Plaintiff provides evidence of guilty pleas by Defendant to 15 counts of Lewd and Lascivious Acts with a Minor in Los Angeles County Criminal Case No. VA085635 for the abuse alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint in support of her motion. (Youssefian Decl., ¶ 2, Exhibit A.)

In opposition, Defendant argues that discovery into his financial condition is an invasion of privacy in this matter. Defendant maintains that there was no increase in Defendant’s net worth by the alleged wrongful conduct, and the discovery is only sought in order to assess Plaintiff’s settlement demands.

Defendant relies upon Rawnsley v. Superior Court, (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 86 for the proposition that a plaintiff, simply by alleging punitive damages, can force a defendant to settle in order to protect its financial privacy. Civ. Code, § 3295(c) was “designed to protect the defendant from a specific type of discovery abuse: a situation in which the plaintiff puts forth an easily-alleged cause of action for punitive damages, thus requiring a defendant to expend the time and money ‘necessary to the compilation of a complex mass of information unrelated to the substantive claim involved in the lawsuit and relevant only to the subject matter of a measure of damages which may never be awarded.’” (Rawnsley v. Superior Court (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 86, 91.)

Here, in contrast, Plaintiff has filed a claim for punitive damages that is directly related to the alleged conduct of Defendant. The Court finds that there is a substantial probability that a jury will find in favor of Plaintiff on the punitive damages claim.

Moreover, a conscious disregard of the safety of others may constitute malice within the meaning of section 3294 of the Civil Code.¿ In order to justify an award of punitive damages on this basis, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his conduct, and that he willfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences.”¿(Taylor v. Super. Ct. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895-896.)

“A plea of guilty is admissible in a subsequent civil case on the independent ground that it is an admission.” (Pease v. Pease (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 29, 33.) Here, Defendant pleaded guilty and was convicted for violating Penal Code section 288(a) which involves “any lewd or lascivious act…upon or with the body, or any part or member thereof, of a child who is under the age of 14 years, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or sexual desires of that person or the child.” (Penal Code § 288(a).) By pleading guilty, Defendant has admitted that he acted with the intent “of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or sexual desires of that person or the child” and that his conduct was not accidental. (Penal Code § 288(a).) By his admission of guilt, Defendant has shown he intended to harm Plaintiff or acted with willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. Therefore, Plaintiff has offered evidence that Defendant acted with malice or oppression, and there is a significant probability that Plaintiff would prevail on her claim for punitive damages.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to conduct financial discovery is GRANTED subject to a protective order agreed upon by the parties.