Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV04180, Date: 2023-05-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV04180    Hearing Date: September 7, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: September 7, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Motion to Strike Punitive Damages

Moving Party: Defendants Maral Int’l Trading Corp, Jessika Barreto, Grettel Ballesteros, and Jorge AM Ballesteros

Responding Party: Plaintiff Veronica Gonzalez

T/R:      DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE IS DENIED.

DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers and opposition.

“Any party, within the time allowed to response to a pleading, may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part" of that pleading. (CCP § 435(b)(1).) “The Court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false or improper matter asserted in any pleading; (b) 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." (CCP § 436.)

Punitive damages are available in noncontract cases where the defendant is guilty of “oppression, fraud, or malice.”  (Civil Code § 3294(a).)  Conclusory allegations are insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages.  (See, e.g., Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital (1989) 214 Cal. App. 3d 590, 620.)  However, “the stricken language must be read not in isolation, but in the context of the facts alleged in the rest of petitioner's complaint.”  (Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal. App. 3d 1, 6.)

Defendants move to strike punitive damages from the FAC on the ground that Plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages for Labor Code violations. Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated various Labor Code sections by failing to pay overtime, failing to provide meal breaks, and other violatons. Plaintiff also asserts causes of action for whistleblower retaliation and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Punitive damages are allowed for these claims. (See e.g. Mathews v. Happy Valley Conference Center, Inc. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 236, 268.)

Defendants’ motion to strike is DENIED.