Judge: Loren G. Freestone, Case: 37-2022-00043234-CU-PL-CTL, Date: 2023-10-27 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 26, 2023

10/27/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-64 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Loren G. Freestone

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Product Liability Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00043234-CU-PL-CTL DEHESA SCHOOL DISTRICT VS STAPLES ENERGY [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING Defendants Staples Energy and Staples and Associates Inc.'s motion to strike Plaintiff Dehesa School District's prayer for punitive damages is DENIED.

Punitive damages are recoverable when a defendant is 'guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.' (Civ.

Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) 'Malice' encompasses 'conduct when 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.' (Id. at subd. (c)(1).) 'While punitive damages may be recovered in a products liability case and in a negligence action, in order to justify an award of punitive damages on the basis of a conscious disregard of the safety of others, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of its conduct and that it willfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences.' (Hilliard v. A. H. Robins Co. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 374, 395; accord Hasson v. Ford Motor Co. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 388, 402–403.) In Hasson, Ford received numerous complaints of brake loss attributable to fluid boil. (Hasson, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 399.) '[A]lthough Ford knew of the fluid boil problem with its Contintenals from dealers and customer complaints, it deliberately failed to warn dealers or owners of available remedial steps because it was protecting Continental reputation among customers.' (Id. at p. 402.) Ford also 'deliberately failed to run adequate tests to accurately define the nature of the brake loss problem and deliberately failed to install a dual master cylinder on the 1966 Continental as original equipment or on recall.' (Id. at p. 403.) The Court held these facts demonstrated that Ford was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of its conduct, and willfully and deliberately failed to avoid them. (Id. at pp.

402–403.) And in Hilliard, an IUD manufacturer received 'reports from its own employees about the wicking hazard and had other significant information about infections caused by wicking.' (Id. at p. 397.) The evidence showed that the manufacturer 'elected to continue to market the device without any change to the string,' despite knowledge 'of a large number of cases of serious pelvic inflammatory disease, of perforations, spontaneous abortions and other series complications associated with the use of Dalkon Shield.' (Id. at pp. 397–398; see also West v. Johnson & Johnson Products Inc. (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 831, 869 [tampon manufacturer's decision to not investigate whether its product caused vaginal infections,' even though it 'received continuing consumer complaints,' was 'in conscious disregard of Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3034482  38 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  DEHESA SCHOOL DISTRICT VS STAPLES ENERGY [IMAGED]  37-2022-00043234-CU-PL-CTL the safety of others'].) Here, Staples allegedly knew the light bulbs posed a fire hazard and had resulted in a fire at another school. Despite such knowledge, Staples allegedly failed to test the bulbs or warn Dehesa before selling them and installing them at the Dehesa School. Such conduct can constitute malice under Hasson, Hilliard, and West.

Staples argues that its 'knowledge of any problems with the LED One bulbs was after the fire on October 5, 2021.' Staples notes that the email it allegedly sent 'admitting to recent instances of light bulb failures resulting in a fire in another school' was not sent until October 29, 2021. But the date Staples admitted to knowing about the prior fire is not necessarily the date Staples learned about the prior fire. The precise date Staples learned about the prior fire is an issue of fact that cannot be resolved by way of a demurrer.

Staples also argues that it did not manufacture the bulbs, that it merely purchased the bulbs from LED One and installed them, that the bulbs were selected from a pre-approved list from SDG&E, that the bulbs were DLC approved, and that once it determined the bulbs were defective it took action to remedy the situation by removing and replacing all of the bulbs. These are all factual issues that are beyond the scope of the complaint.

Dehesa has sufficiently alleged facts demonstrating malice. The motion to strike is therefore denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3034482  38