Judge Lisa K. Sepe-Wiesenfeld, Case Number: 24SMCV03761, Date: 2025-05-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lisa K. Sepe-Wiesenfeld, Case: 24SMCV03761, Date: 2025-05-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV03761 Hearing Date: May 13, 2025 Dept: N

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant 1033 Somera, LLC’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint is

GRANTED with thirty (30) days leave to amend.

Plaintiff Jose Castaneda may amend his complaint only as authorized by the Court’s order and

may not amend the complaint to add a new party or cause of action without having obtained

permission to do so. (Harris v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1023.)

Defendant 1033 Somera, LLC to give notice.

REASONING

The court may, upon 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,

subd. (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. (Code Civ. Proc., §

436, subd. (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. (Code Civ. Proc., §

436.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of

judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful

amendment. (See Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349 [court shall not “sustain a

demurrer without leave to amend if there is any reasonable possibility that the defect can be

cured by amendment”]; Kong v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency (2002) 108

Cal.App.4th 1028, 1037 [“A demurrer should not be sustained without leave to amend if the

complaint, liberally construed, can state a cause of action under any theory or if there is a

reasonable possibility the defect can be cured by amendment.”]; Vaccaro v. Kaiman (1998) 63

Cal.App.4th 761, 768 [“When the defect which justifies striking a complaint is capable of cure,

the court should allow leave to amend.”].) The burden is on the complainant to show the Court

that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)

Defendant 1033 Somera, LLC (“Defendant”) moves to strike Plaintiff Jose Castaneda

(“Plaintiff”)’s prayer for punitive damages on page 8 of his complaint.

Punitive damages may be recovered upon a proper showing of malice, fraud, or oppression. (Civ.

Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) “Malice” is defined as conduct intended to cause injury to a person or

despicable conduct carried on with a willful and conscious disregard for the rights or safety of

others. (Turman v. Turning Point of Cent. Cal., Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.)

“Oppression” means despicable conduct subjecting a person to cruel and unjust hardship, in

conscious disregard of the person’s rights. (Ibid.) “Fraud” is an intentional misrepresentation,

deceit, or concealment of a material fact known by defendant, with intent to deprive a person of

property, rights or otherwise cause injury. (Ibid.) Conclusory allegations, devoid of any factual

assertions, are insufficient to support a conclusion that parties acted with oppression, fraud, or

malice. (Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1042.)

First, Plaintiff has included only a prayer for punitive damages; there are no specific allegations

of malice, fraud, or oppression in the complaint. Moreover, Plaintiff’s allegations sound in

negligence, which generally will not support a claim for punitive damages, as negligence is an

unintentional tort, and a negligent party has no desire to cause the harm that results from its

conduct, differing from a party who has engaged in willful misconduct and intended to cause

harm. (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166-167.) Allegations of

negligence where injuries might occur but are not probable do not support a claim of punitive

damages. (McDonell v American Trust Co. (1955) 130 Cal.App.2d 296, 300; see also Woolstrum

v. Mailloux (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 12 [evidence of negligence insufficient to show that

defendant knew or must have known of the danger].) Without further facts, the trier of fact could

not conclude that harm was probable or that Defendant engaged in willful misconduct.

Accordingly, Defendant 1033 Somera, LLC’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint

is GRANTED with thirty (30) days leave to amend. Plaintiff Jose Castaneda may amend his

complaint only as authorized by the Court’s order and may not amend the complaint to add a

new party or cause of action without having obtained permission to do so. (Harris v. Wachovia

Mortgage, FSB (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1023.)

Website by Triangulus