Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 23SMCV05294, Date: 2024-03-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV05294    Hearing Date: March 18, 2024    Dept: I

The motion to strike is DENIED.  Plaintiff was involved in an altercation at defendant’s business establishment.  She alleges that she was assaulted by a bouncer that defendant employed.  Defendant seeks to strike the punitive damages allegation.  Defendant’s major argument is that the complaint is nothing but boilerplate generalities when it comes to the allegations that could give rise to a punitive damages award against the employer.  Defendant correctly points out that to obtain punitive damages against it, pursuant to Civil Code section 3294, plaintiff must allege that the assault was done by an officer, director, or managing agent within the scope of employment, was authorized or ratified by defendant, or that the person committing the assault was employed by defendant with knowledge of the propensity for violent misconduct.  The complaint here alleges that the person committing the assault had the requisite intent to cause harm, but that alone does not give rise to punitive damages against the moving defendant. 

The problem is that the information that plaintiff would need to establish punitive damages against the defendant are uniquely within defendants’ knowledge.  It is unreasonable to make plaintiff plead details about what the corporate entity did or did not do regarding the alleged assault either before or after it happened at this stage; it is unreasonable to require plaintiff to plead the facts regarding the alleged assaulter’s hiring and supervision.  The issue is better tested after discovery by way of a motion for summary judgment.