Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 23STCV05129, Date: 2024-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 23STCV05129, Date: 2024-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV05129 Hearing Date: February 7, 2024 Dept: 30

TENTATIVE

Defendants Sun Hee Suh dba Top Learning Center and Kyung Joon Min’s motion to strike is DENIED. Plaintiff to give notice.

Legal Standard

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(b)(1).)¿The court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion and upon terms it deems proper: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436;¿Stafford v. Shultz¿(1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782.)¿ The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Id. § 437.)

Meet and Confer

The meet and confer requirement has been met.

Discussion

Defendant moves to strike portions of the complaint using language for punitive damages, arguing it fails to state a claim for punitive damages.

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.” Courts have viewed despicable conduct as conduct “so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people. (Scott v. Phoenix Schools, Inc., (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 702, 715.)

¿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.)

“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. [Citations.] In passing on the correctness of a ruling on a motion to strike, judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth. [Citations.] In ruling on a motion to strike, courts do not read allegations in isolation. [Citation.]” (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged conduct that would allow for punitive damages. The complaint alleges that Serrano, who is 13 years old, was subjected to physical abuse by his tutor Min, employed by Defendants. Min asked Serrano a question, and when Serrano could not answer correctly, Min grabbed and pulled Serrano by the arm, struck him in the head five times with a book, and continuously poked his forehead with his finger. Serrano objected and tried to run away from Min, however Min became physical again, and grabbed his arm. The allegations are sufficient to show Defendant was guilty of malice, as this conduct was carried on with willful and conscious disregard of the rights of the child. Physical abuse on a 13-year-old boy by his tutor would certainly be looked down upon by ordinary people as vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome.

Based on the arguments presented, the motion is denied.