Judge Mark A. Young, Case Number: 24SMCV02753, Date: 2025-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 24SMCV02753, Date: 2025-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV02753 Hearing Date: March 4, 2025 Dept: M

CASE NAME: Allen v. Cantina Frida, et al.

CASE NO.: 24SMCV02753

MOTION: Motion to Strike Punitive Damages

HEARING DATE: 3/4/2025

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. (CCP § 435(b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1322(b).) 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. (CCP §§ 436(a)-(b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782 [“Matter in a pleading which is not essential to the claim is surplusage; probative facts are surplusage and may be stricken out or disregarded”].)

“Liberality in permitting amendment is the rule, if a fair opportunity to correct any defect has not been given.” (Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1227.) It is an abuse of discretion for the court to deny leave to amend where there is any reasonable possibility that plaintiff can state a good cause of action. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) The burden is on plaintiff to show¿in what manner¿plaintiff can amend the complaint, and¿how¿that amendment will change the legal effect of the pleading.¿(Id.)

ANALYSIS

Defendant Frida Restaurant Beverly Hills LLC (sued as Cantina Frida) moves to strike the request for punitive damages Plaintiff Spencer Allen’s complaint.

As set forth below, Plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts to support a claim of punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294(c). This subsection provides the following definitions:

(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.

Despicable is a powerful term used to describe circumstances that are “base,” “vile,” or “contemptible.” (Coll. Hosp. v. Superior Ct. (1994) 9 Cal.4th 704, 726.) The statute “plainly indicates that absent an intent to injure the plaintiff, “malice” requires more than a “willful and conscious” disregard of the plaintiffs' interests. The additional component of “despicable conduct” must be found.” (Id.)

The complaint provides the following factual allegations. On June 9, 2022, Plaintiff placed an order with Cantina Frida through the Uber Eats platform. (¶ 8.) Cantina Frida is marketed as an "allergy-friendly" restaurant. (Id.) Allen checked the optional checkboxes designed to disclose food allergies. (¶9.) Upon consuming a few bites of the tacos, Plaintiff experienced an anaphylactic episode. (¶ 10.) He promptly contacted the restaurant to inquire whether the food he received contained any walnuts or peanuts, as he has a known history of severe allergies to these nuts. (Id.) An employee of Cantina Frida initially denied the presence of peanuts and walnuts in the food, but later confirmed with the kitchen staff that the food contained peanuts and walnuts. (¶ 11.) Plaintiff had to administer an epinephrine injection to counteract the allergic reaction. (Id.) He was also rushed to an emergency room where he received further medical care. (Id.) In sum, the complaint alleges that Defendants failed to exercise due care by: a) failing to disclose the presence of allergens in the food items served and delivered; b) negligently designing the online menu and ordering platform without critical allergen information or the transmission of allergen information between parties; c) inadequately training and supervising employees; d) providing incorrect and delayed information regarding the allergen content of the food; and e) misbranding and disseminating false or misleading advertisements. (Compl., ¶ 2.)

The Court observes no allegations establishing, as a matter of fact, that the above conduct was malicious, oppressive or fraudulent. Critically, there are no charging allegations attempting to establish fraud, oppression or malice as defined by section 3294. The complaint only establishes that, at worst, Cantina Frida negligently designed the online menu without including critical allergen information, negligently prepared and packaged the food and negligently failed to adequately disclose the presence of allergens. (Compl., ¶¶ 18-20.) Each of the claims sound in negligence: Cantina Frida had had a duty of care to accurately and clearly disclose all allergens in their food items and breached this duty by failing to disclose the presence of walnuts and peanuts in the Chicken Mole taco. (¶¶ 25-26, 35, 40, 47, 52.)

The complaint does state a claim for negligent misrepresentation, which theoretically could support a claim of punitive damages. The complaint emphasizes Cantina Frida’s “misrepresentation” regarding the “allergy friendly” nature of the restaurant. (Compl., ¶¶ 13-14.) Defendants also negligently made false representations about the “allergy friendly” nature of the restaurant. (¶ 64.) Cantina Frida’s employee assured Plaintiff that the food did not contain walnuts or peanuts without verifying this information. (¶ 72.) Plaintiff allegedly relied upon Defendants’ assurances that the food did not contain walnuts or peanuts. (¶ 58.) However, the facts alleged only show that this representation happened after Plaintiff ate the tacos. (¶10.) Thus, this alleged assurance by the employee could not be the cause of Plaintiff’s harm. Otherwise, he states that he disclosed unspecified food allergies. He does not allege that Cantina Frida made any specific representations with an intent to deprive Plaintiff of anything, or otherwise cause him injury. Therefore, further facts are required to support the claim of punitive damages.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff failed to oppose, and therefore failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility that Plaintiff can state additional facts in support of the punitive damages claim. Plaintiff will have a final opportunity at the hearing to proffer such facts in support of leave to amend. Otherwise, the motion is granted without leave to amend.