Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV01305, Date: 2023-12-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23NWCV01305 Hearing Date: December 20, 2023 Dept: C
Sanchez v. all
seasons investment
CASE NO.: 23NWCV01305
HEARING: 12/20/23 @ 10:30 AM
#8
Defendant’s Motion to Strike is GRANTED in
part as to Paragraphs 50, 62, 69, and 10 and DENIED in part as to Paragraphs 51
and 62.
Moving Party to give NOTICE.
Defendant All Seasons Investment, LLC
(Defendant) moves to strike portions of Plaintiff Zenia Sanchez’s (Plaintiff)
Complaint related to punitive damages for failing to plead sufficient facts to
constitute malice oppression or fraud.
Plaintiff
filed a Complaint against Defendant alleging numerous causes of action related
to her employment with Defendant from January 18, 2021 to January 25, 2023.
Plaintiff alleges:
1.
Failure
to Provide Meal and Rest Breaks
2.
Failure
to Pay Overtime
3.
Failure
to Pay Earned Wages upon Discharge
4.
Failure
to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements
5.
Discrimination
and Wrongful Termination in Violation of FEHA
6.
Wrongful
Termination in Violation of Public Policy
7.
Disability
Discrimination and Failure to Accommodate
8.
Disability
Discrimination and Failure to Engage in Interactive Process
Meet and Confer
The Court finds
that Defendant complied with the meet and confer requirements in CCP § 435.5.
Legal
Standard
Motions
to strike are used to reach defects or objections to pleadings which are not
challengeable by demurrer (i.e., words, phrases, prayer for damages, etc.). (CCP
§§ 435, 436 & 437.) A motion to strike lies only where the pleading has
irrelevant, false or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in
conformity with laws. (C.C.P. § 436.) The grounds for moving to strike must
appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (C.C.P. §
437.)
Discussion
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s Complaint is
devoid of any ultimate facts which would support a claim for punitive damages. “In
order to survive a motion to strike an allegation of punitive damages, the
ultimate facts showing an entitlement to such relief must be pled by a
plaintiff.” (Clauson v. Sup. Ct..(1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 1253, 1255.)
Plaintiff alleges “Defendant’s discrimination was done intentionally, in a
malicious, oppressive manner, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages.” (Compl.
¶ 50 and 62.) “Defendant[‘s] actions were willful, malicious, fraudulent, and
oppressive and were committed with the wrongful intent to injure Plaintiff and
in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.” (Compl. ¶ 69.) None of these
allegations provide sufficient ultimate facts which show entitlement to
punitive damages. Thus, Defendant’s Motion to Strike Paragraphs 50, 62, and 69
of the Complaint and Paragraph 10 of the Prayer for Relief is granted.
Defendant seeks to strike Paragraphs 51 and 62
which relate to legal expenses and general damages respectively. Defendant
provides no support to strike these allegations. Thus, Defendant’s Motion to
Strike Paragraphs 51 and 62 is denied.
Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend is
granted because Plaintiff has not yet amended her Complaint.
Accordingly, Defendant’s
Motion to Strike is GRANTED in part as to Paragraphs 50, 62, 69, and 10 and
DENIED in part as to Paragraphs 51 and 62. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend
within 20 days of this Order.