Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV14500, Date: 2023-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV14500    Hearing Date: February 27, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: February 27, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Strike Punitive Damages

Moving Party: Defendant Rachel Juai Ching Shui

Responding Party: Plaintiff Michelle Xiumei Wang

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

            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.) The Court's authority to strike improper pleadings includes the power to strike those pleadings that are "not filed in conformity with its prior ruling (Janis v. California State Lottery Com (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 824, 829.) 

            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 moves to strike Plaintiff’s prayers for injunctive relief and punitive damages. Plaintiff does not oppose striking the prayer for injunctive relief.

Defendant asserts Plaintiff has failed to allege Defendant acted with fraud, oppression, or malice. Plaintiff alleges the parties entered into a commercial lease agreement wherein Plaintiff would not be obligated to pay rent until Defendant performed certain improvements. Plaintiff made improvements to the premises and brought in furniture. Plaintiff alleges Defendant has locked her out of the premises, depriving her of her personal property. This is insufficient to plead punitive damages. The facts alleged amount only to a breach of contract.

            Defendant’s motion to strike is GRANTED.