Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV03323, Date: 2023-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV03323    Hearing Date: October 11, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: October 11, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Motion to Strike

Moving Party: Defendant Carmax Auto Superstores, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiff Melina Hatzidakis

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.)

Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s prayers for punitive damages and UCL injunctive relief.

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 asserts Plaintiff has failed to allege fraud, malice, or oppression and has failed to allege ratification by a corporate managing agent. Plaintiff alleges Defendant engages in a pattern of conduct in which it wrongfully repossesses cars sold to consumers, demands full payment, and denies reinstatement of the sales contract in violation of the Rees-Levering Act. Plaintiff alleges Defendant repossessed her vehicle even though she was not in default and refused to reinstate the contract. Plaintiff alleges this process is corporate policy ratified by corporate agents. This is sufficient to allege entitlement to punitive damages.

Defendant argues Plaintiff cannot seek public injunctive relief under the UCL because Plaintiff has not brought a class action. No class action is required when, as here, a private plaintiff seeks only a public injunction, without a request for monetary relief, on behalf of others. (See McGill v. Citibank (2017) 2 Cal.5th 945, 960.)

Defendant’s motion to strike is DENIED.