Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 23STCV07156, Date: 2023-09-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV07156    Hearing Date: October 19, 2023    Dept: 30

JUNGHAN KIM vs PRIME/PARK LABREA TITLEHOLDER, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al.

Motion to Strike - without Demurrer

TENTATIVE 

Motion to Strike is GRANTED, without leave to amend. Moving parties to provide notice.

Defendants contend that the SAC does not meet the heightened requirements for pleading punitive damages. The facts in the SAC concern requests for repairs and attempts made. Thus, allegations of general negligence do not rise to the type of allegations for punitive damages. Even gross negligence is insufficient for punitive damages; thus, Plaintiff’s claim for negligence – that Defendants refused to repair a leaking sink – are not sufficient for punitive damages.

Plaintiff argues that the SAC sufficiently allegations facts to support punitive damages. The pattern of conduct exhibited by Defendant would be “characterized as ‘despicable,’ given its sustained and deliberate failure to address hazardous conditions…” (Opp. 4: 3-5.) Defendants were aware and noted that the faucet drips, but failed to sufficiently address the situation.

To obtain punitive damages, a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts in support of punitive damages. (See Hilliard v. A.H. Robins Co. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 374, 391-92.) In addition, punitive damages are allowed only where “it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) 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.) Further, Civil Code § 3294(c) provides the definition of malice, oppression, and fraud. Malice is “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.” Oppression is “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.” Fraud is “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.”

Additionally, under subsection (b) of Civil Code § 3294, an employer cannot be liable for damages until 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.”

“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 mere allegation an intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages.¿[Citation.]¿Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim. [Citation.]” (Grieves v. Superior Ct. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166 (footnote omitted).)¿

Previously, this Court determined that the FAC did not meet the requirements for punitive damages, and allowed Plaintiff to amend the complaint. After a review of the SAC, the Court finds that Plaintiff has still failed to sufficiently meet the requirements for punitive damages.T

This Court determined previously that the FAC did not sufficiently allege punitive damages against a corporate defendant because it failed to name an officer, director, or managing agent. Looking at the SAC, the Court finds that Plaintiff still failed to sufficiently allege that a managing agent authorized or ratified the malicious conduct. The only reference in the SAC is to “Gigi,” who is believed to be “one of the managing agents of prevented Defendants’ employees from undertaking the necessary repairs prior to the incident.” (SAC ¶ 44.) Looking at this paragraph, Gigi allegedly authorized the kitchen countertop to be replaced and to re-pipe the kitchen skin. However, the FAC only states conclusory that she prevented others from repairing prior requests. This is insufficient for punitive damages.

Even still, as this Court determined, failing to check on a leak is not the type of conduct that would allow for punitive damages. Failing to check the leak may be a conscious disregard for the safety of others, but is not so vile, loathsome, miserable that it would be looked down upon in society. Failure to fix leaks is unfortunately a common occurrence. Thus, Plaintiff is bringing a claim for negligence. However, not repairing a leak in a faucet does not constitute conduct that would be malicious, oppressive, or fraudulent.

Leave to amend should be liberally granted if there is a reasonable possibility an amendment could cure the defect. (County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 1018,1035.) The Plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that leave to amend should be granted, and that the defects can be cured by amendment. (“Plaintiff must show in what manner he can amend his complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of his pleading.” Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) Previously, this Court allowed Plaintiff to amend the FAC, and detailed why the claim for punitive damages failed, mainly that there was no naming of an officer and that the conduct was not the type that would allow for punitive damages. The SAC fails to sufficiently cure those defects. Thus, the Court finds that leave to amend should not be granted