Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV04180, Date: 2025-01-27 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 22STCV04180    Hearing Date: January 27, 2025    Dept: 54

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

Hugo Montoya Bautista, et al.,

 

 

 

Plaintiffs,

 

Case No.:

 

 

22STCV04180

 

vs.

 

 

Tentative Ruling

 

AMG Stone, Inc., et al.,

 

 

 

Defendants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hearing Date: January 27, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Motion to Strike Punitive Damages

Moving Party: Defendant Caesarstone USA, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Hugo Montoya Bautista and Alma Patricia Jaimez Cortes

 

T/R:      DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE IS DENIED.

 

DEFENDANT 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, opposition, and reply.

 

“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.)

 

Defendant Caesarstone moves to strike Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages on the ground that Plaintiffs have failed to allege Defendant is guilty of fraud, oppression, or malice with the requisite specificity. Plaintiffs allege Defendant Caesarstone has known of the dangers of its products for decades and misrepresented the safety of its products in its safety materials, citing specific documents and specific facts. This is sufficient to allege entitlement to punitive damages.

 

Defendant’s motion to strike is DENIED.