Judge: Martha K. Gooding, Case: 2021-01232898, Date: 2022-10-03 Tentative Ruling
1) Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint – GRANTED with leave to amend
2) Case Management Conference – continued
The Motion by Defendant California Automobile Insurance Company to strike portions of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) is granted with 15 days leave to amend.
A court may strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading or strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule or an order of the court. Code Civ. Proc. § 436. “Irrelevant” matters include: allegations not essential to the claim, allegations neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or a demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc. § 431.10(b).) A motion to strike can also strike legal conclusions. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide, Civil Proc. before Trial, ¶ 7:179 (2010).) Conclusory allegations are permitted, however, if they are supported by other factual allegations in the complaint. (Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App. 3d 1, 6.)
Civil Code § 3294 provides that punitive damages may be awarded in an action for breach of an obligation not arising from contract, if the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. “Malice” means conduct that is intended to cause injury or despicable conduct that is carried on with a willful and conscious disregard of the right and safety of others. (Civ. Code § 3294(c)(1).)
At the pleading stage, the complaint must allege facts supporting circumstances of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166 (“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].”).)
In the FAC, Plaintiffs allege they, through counsel, reported the subject loss to Defendant on 2/1/21. (FAC, ¶ 19.) On 2/3/21, the adjuster sent a letter of acknowledgment explaining how the coverage for the loss would work. (FAC, ¶¶ 20-23.) On 2/4/21, Plaintiffs’ counsel submitted a proof of loss form to the adjuster. (FAC, ¶ 24.) On 2/23/21, an inspection was held at the property. (FAC, ¶ 25.) A cleaning estimate was drafted by Servpro for the amount of $7,929.58. (FAC, ¶ 28.) Plaintiffs submitted their own cleaning estimate drafted by Jen Renovation in the amount of $20,737.38. (FAC, ¶ 29.) On 4/8/21, Defendant sent written notice that it would not release payment to Plaintiffs until Plaintiffs chose a vendor to conduct the restoration. (FAC, ¶ 32.) On 9/24/21, Plaintiffs’ counsel emailed Defendant a formal demand stating that they would file suit if Defendant did not release the funds. (FAC, ¶ 33.) On 10/13/21 and 10/19/21, Defendant issued payments to Plaintiffs. (FAC, ¶¶ 35-36, Exs. F and G.) On October 21 and 23, Plaintiffs’ counsel hired vendors to conduct further inspections and draft estimates. (FAC, ¶¶ 37-38.) On 10/27/21, Plaintiffs; counsel submitted a further demand letter. (FAC, ¶ 39.) On 11/8/21, Defendant hired a vendor to conduct an inspection on the alleged damages, and on 11/10/21, Defendant issued the inspection report and responded that no additional funds were owed to Plaintiffs. (FAC, ¶¶ 40-41.)
The above facts do not support Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim. Based on the allegations, Defendant responded to all of Plaintiffs’ demands, conducted inspections, obtained an inspection report regarding the alleged damage, and obtained estimates regarding the cost of remediating the alleged damage. Ultimately, Defendant tendered more than the amount of its initial estimate from Servpro.
The allegations boil down to two disagreements between the parties: the method of Defendant’s reimbursement (Plaintiff argues they should have been paid prior to undertaking any remediation work) and the amount of the reimbursement ($7,929.58 vs. $20,737.38).
This alleged conduct does not rise to the level of "malice," "oppression" or "fraud" as required to support a claim of punitive damages.
As a result, the motion to strike is GRANTED with leave to amend.
The CMC is continued to December 12, 2022 at 9:00 a.m.
Defendant is ordered to give notice.