Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 22STCV12679, Date: 2023-12-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV12679, Date: 2023-12-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV12679 Hearing Date: December 11, 2023 Dept: 30

BERTHA LIZARRAGA vs SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES, INC., et al.

Motion for Leave to Amend to Add Punitive Damages

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is DENIED. Defendant Social Vocational Services to give notice.

Background

On April 15, 2022, Plaintiff Bertha Lizarraga filed this complaint against Defendants Social Vocational Services, Inc., and Songlin Development LLC, alleging causes of action for negligence, and premises liability. The complaint alleges that on February 7, 2021, Plaintiff was walking into 11849 Firestone Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650, when she tripped and fell over sandbags placed in the walkway which was inconspicuous, causing Plaintiff to fall and to sustain severe injuries to her pelvis and right hip.

On April 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to file an amended complaint. On December 5, 2023, Defendant filed an opposition. No reply has been filed.

Legal Standard

California Code of Civil Procedure section¿473, subdivision¿(a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party¿to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer.¿ The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”¿

“This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.”¿¿(Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court¿(1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.)¿ Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature.¿ The court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment.¿¿(See¿California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿(1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281¿(overruled on other grounds by¿Kransco¿v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co.¿(2000) 23 Cal.4th 390).)¿

Under¿California Rules of Court¿Rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading shall (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) state what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any,¿and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.¿

Under¿California Rule of Court¿Rule 3.1324(b), a separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4)¿the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.¿

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks leave to file an amended complaint to add allegations for punitive damages

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Defendant’s opposition is untimely.

“A trial court has broad discretion to overlook late-served papers and to resolve the matter on the merits.” (Gonzalez v. Santa Clara County Dept. of Social Services (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 162, 168 [“(E)ven if the service had been untimely, the trial court was vested with discretion to overlook the defect”]; see also Bozzi v. Nordstrom, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 755, 765 [“A trial court has broad discretion under rule 3.1300(d) of the Rules of Court to refuse to consider papers served and filed beyond the deadline without a prior court order finding good cause for late submission.”].) However, the Court exercises its discretion and considers the merits of the opposition.

As to the merits of the motion, Plaintiff argues that recently discovered evidence, including admissions by Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable that Defendant knew sandbags at a door posed a tripping hazard, and that Defendant was “careless” in placing those sandbags in front of the door without any warnings, warrant the imposition of punitive damages against Defendant.

In opposition, Defendant argues the proposed amended complaint fails to state sufficient facts to support a claim for punitive damages. All plaintiff relies upon in bringing the motion is a comment from Defendant’s person most knowledgeable that it was “careless” to place the sandbags where they were.

To state a claim for punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294, a plaintiff must allege specific facts showing that the defendant has been guilty of malice, oppression or fraud. (Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal. App. 4th 1033, 1042.) The basis for punitive damages must be pled with specificity; conclusory allegations devoid of any factual assertions are insufficient. (Id.) A motion to strike may lie where the facts alleged, if proven, would not support a finding that the defendant acted with malice, fraud or oppression. (Turman v. Turning Point of Central California (2010) 191 Cal. App. 4th 53, 63.)

“Malice” is defined in section 3294(c)(1) as “conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury” or “despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” “Oppression” is defined in section 3294(c)(2) as “despicable conduct subjecting a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.” The term “despicable” has been defined in the case law as actions that are “base,” “vile,” or “contemptible.” (See, e.g., Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc. (2000) 78 Cal. App. 4th 847, 891.)

To prove that a defendant acted with “willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others,” it is not enough to prove negligence, gross negligence or even recklessness. (Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 82, 87.) Rather, a plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating that “the defendant acted in such an outrageous and reprehensible manner that the jury could infer that he [or she] knowingly disregarded the substantial certainty of injury to others.” (Id. at 90). Further, the allegations must be sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that Defendant’s conduct was “despicable” defined as “base, vile or contemptible.” (College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 704, 725.)

Upon careful review of the proposed pleading, the Court finds insufficient facts have been alleged to state a claim for punitive damages. At most, the proposed pleading alleges gross negligence. However, to prove that a defendant acted with “willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others,” it is not enough to prove negligence, gross negligence or even recklessness. (Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 82, 87.)

Thus, the motion is denied as to adding a claim for punitive damages.