Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV40921, Date: 2024-01-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV40921 Hearing Date: January 5, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On December 29, 2022, Plaintiff Elias Acevedo Holguin (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Bryan James Hammer (“Hammer”), Super T Transport, Inc. (“Super T”), 99 Cents Only Stores, LLC (“99 Cents Only”), PP Tango CA LLC, Link Logistics Real Estate LLC, Allied Universal Security Services Universal Protection Service LPP, Realty Associates Fund X, LP, Washington Food Center Association, and Does 1- 100 for battery and negligence.
On July 11, 2023, 99 Cents Only filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Hammer, Super T, and Roes 1-10 for total equitable indemnity, partial equitable indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief.
On August 15, 2023, the clerk entered Super T’s default on the complaint. On September 1, 2023, the Court set aside the default based on the stipulation of Plaintiff and Super T. On September 19, 2023, Super T filed an answer.
On October 16, 2023, Hammer filed an answer to the complaint.
On December 29, 2023, Hammer filed a motion to strike the punitive damage allegations from the complaint. The motion was set for hearing on January 5, 2024. On December 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On December 29, 2023, Hammer filed a reply.
Trial is currently scheduled for June 27, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Hammer requests that the Court strike the punitive damage allegations from Plaintiff’s complaint.
Plaintiff requests that the Court deny the motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Motion to strike
“Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1).) The Court may “[s]trike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a).) “The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading of from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437, subd. (a).) “Where the motion to strike is based on matter of which the court may take judicial notice pursuant to Section 452 or 453 of the Evidence Code, such matter shall be specified in the notice of motion, or in the supporting points and authorities, except as the court may otherwise permit.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437, subd. (b).)
B. Punitive damages
Civil Code section 3294 provides in part:
“(a) In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.
“(b) An employer shall not be liable for damages pursuant to subdivision (a), based upon acts of an employee of the employer, unless the employer had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. With respect to a corporate employer, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation.
“(c) As used in this section, the following definitions shall apply:
“(1) “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.
“(2) “Oppression” means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.
“(3) “Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury. . . .”
(Civ. Code, § 3294, subds. (a), (b), (c).)
DISCUSSION
A. The complaint
The complaint alleges the following:
On or about January 4, 2021, at a parking lot located at 3020-3090 Washington Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90023 (“premises”), Hammer intentionally and violently hit, struck and battered Plaintiff on and about Plaintiff’s person without Plaintiff’s consent, injuring Plaintiff.
Defendants intended to injure Plaintiff and acted with actual malice, entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive and exemplary damages against Defendants. Defendants’ acts, by and through Hammer, were despicable and done in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s safety.
B. Defendant’s motion
Hammer argues the complaint does not allege facts that support a punitive damage claim against Hammer.
C. Analysis
“In addition to the requirement that the complaint set forth the elements as stated in [Civil Code] section 3294, it must include specific factual allegations showing that defendant's conduct was oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious to support a claim for punitive damages.” (Today's IV, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1137, 1193, citing Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 872 (Brousseau).) “Punitive damages may not be pleaded generally.” (Ibid., citing Brousseau, supra, 73 Cal.App.3d at p. 872.)
The complaint alleges that Hammer intentionally and violently hit, struck and battered Plaintiff on and about Plaintiff’s person without Plaintiff’s consent, injuring Plaintiff. It also alleges that Defendants intended to injure Plaintiff. The complaint sufficiently pleads ultimate facts entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages. The Court denies the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Defendant Bryan James Hammer’s motion to strike the punitive damage allegations in Plaintiff Elias Acevedo Holguin’s complaint.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.