Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV25458, Date: 2025-02-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV25458    Hearing Date: February 3, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: February 3, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

(2) Motions to Strike Punitive Damages

Moving Party: Defendants Caesarstone USA, Inc. and Qui & C Corp. dba T & L Granite Countertop Warehouse

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Eleazar Resendiz Cortes and Gabriela De La Cruz

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

DEFENDANT QUI & C CORP.’S MOTION TO STRIKE IS GRANTED.

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, oppositions, 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.)

A. Defendant Caesarstone’s Motion to Strike

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 Plaintiff Cortes has suffered from silicosis from using Defendants’ products. 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 Caesarstone’s motion to strike is DENIED.

B. Defendant Qui & C Corp. dba T & L Granite Countertop Warehouse’s Motion to Strike

Defendant Qui & C also moves to strike punitive damages on the ground that Plaintiffs have failed to allege Defendant is guilty of fraud, oppression, or malice with the requisite specificity. Unlike the allegations against Caesarstone, Plaintiff does not make any specific allegations against Qui & C. Instead, Plaintiff groups Defendant in with all Defendants, generally alleging Defendants knew the risks of their product and failed to inform or warn Plaintiff of these dangers. This is insufficient to meet the heightened pleading standard for punitive damages.

Defendant Qui & C Corp.’s motion to strike is GRANTED.