Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV30735, Date: 2023-02-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV30735    Hearing Date: February 15, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: February 15, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Strike Punitive Damages

Moving Party: Defendants 233 South Lafayette Park Place LP and MJW Investments

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Violeta Ortiz and Emmanuel Hernandez

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

DEFENDANTS TO FILE AND SERVE AN ANSWER TO COMPLAINT WITHIN 15 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

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.) 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.)

Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages. Defendants assert that Plaintiffs have failed to allege malice, oppression, or fraud with the requisite specificity. Plaintiffs allege Defendants refused to repair a ceiling leak in their bathroom for more than four months, forcing them to be exposed to mold, to be displaced, and to lose all income from Plaintiff’s at-home childcare business. This is sufficient to support punitive damages.

            The motion to strike is DENIED.