Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2023-00037511-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2024-01-19 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 18, 2024

01/19/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00037511-CU-PO-CTL CECILIA NEIMAN AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO BRICE ALAN NEIMAN VS HILTON WORLDWIDE INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendants Alyssa Turowski, Hilton Worldwide, Inc., and CHH Torrey Pines Tenant Corp.'s motions to strike are DENIED.

A court may strike 'any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a).) An improper claim for punitive damages can be stricken. (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 163-64.) Punitive damages are not favored and are generally granted only 'with the greatest caution.' (Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment and Housing Comm'n (1987) 43 Ca1.3d 1379, 1392.) A claim for punitive damages must also be pled with specificity; conclusory allegations unsupported by facts showing malicious, fraudulent, or oppressive intentions will not suffice. (G.D.

Searle & Co. v. Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 32-33; Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1041-42.) In tort cases, a plaintiff may seek punitive damages when the defendant is guilty of 'oppression, fraud or malice.' (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) Malice is defined as conduct that '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.' (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1).) Oppression means 'despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.' (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(2).) 'Pleading in the language of the statute (i.e., that defendants acted with 'oppression, fraud, and malice') is not objectionable when sufficient facts are alleged to support the allegation.' (Perkins v. Superior Court, 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6-7.) Here, sufficient facts have been alleged to support a claim for punitive damages against each of the defendants. According to the complaint, Decedent Brice Alan Neiman passed away on May 18, 2023 following a 30 foot fall at the Hilton La Jolla Torrey Pines on May 11, 2023. Plaintiffs contend the fall was caused by Defendants failure to: install proper lighting around the stairs, install safety handrails/guardrails at the correct height, construct the stairs to be even in height and depth, and provide appropriate warnings and assistance to guests. Plaintiffs contend these were intentional or knowing failures because Defendants received numerous written complaints in the years preceding Decedent's fall, the stairs had previously caused injuries and deaths, and Defendants were advised by contractors of the dangerous state of the stairs, but instead of addressing the issue, Defendants purportedly avoided approximately $10,000 in estimated costs to make the needed repairs in order to keep expenses as low as possible. Plaintiffs further contend that Defendants' alleged failure to notify the San Diego Police Department of the fall and subsequent refusal to provide witness statements, reports, and video surveillance show an intent to hide their failures and avoid responsibility. Finally, Plaintiffs contend Defendants were involved in and lost a prior lawsuit involving the same stairs and the same Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3039454  21 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  CECILIA NEIMAN AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO BRICE ALAN  37-2023-00037511-CU-PO-CTL safety failures related to the stairs.

Based on these alleged facts, the court has little trouble concluding that if proven true, a factfinder could determine that Defendants' failure to repair and maintain the stairs in a safe condition was willful and in conscious disregard for the safety of its guests, including Decedent, and that such failure was despicable in that it was driven by a desire to keep costs low and because Defendants allegedly tried to hide their failures and avoid responsibility.

Plaintiffs have also sufficiently identified the corporate actors responsible for the tortious conduct. 'It is well settled that while an employer may be held liable for an employee's tort under the doctrine of Respondeat superior, he is not responsible for punitive damages where he neither directed nor ratified the act.' (Ebaugh v. Rabkin (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 891, 895.) A plaintiff seeking punitive damages from a corporate employer must allege and prove that a managing agent, whose conduct is at issue, exercised substantial discretionary authority over the corporation's business. (Taylor v. Trees, Inc. (2014) 58 F.Supp.3d 1092.) Here, Plaintiffs have not only identified the managing agent (Defendant Turowski), they have also included her as a defendant. Defendants have thus been placed on sufficient notice of the grounds for Plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages.

Accordingly, Defendants' motions to strike are denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3039454  21