Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 24STCV07685, Date: 2024-08-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV07685 Hearing Date: August 29, 2024 Dept: 45
Hearing Date: August
29, 2024
Moving
Party: Defendant
Affordable Pet Care Group Los Angeles
Responding
Party: Plaintiff
Jessica Anaya
Motion:
Defendant’s Motion to
Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint
Tentative
Ruling: The
Court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply. The motion is DENIED.
Background
On
March 27, 2024, Jesica Anaya (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against her former
employer Affordable Pet Care Group of Los Angeles (APCG or Defendant) for
several violations of California Labor Codes, the Fair Employment and Housing
Act (FEHA), and wrongful termination. The Complaint alleges twelve causes of
action surrounding Plaintiff’s time while working for Defendant in which she
alleges she was not provided her mandatory rest periods, she was not paid full
wages nor overtime, and that she was terminated because of her pregnancy.
The
motion now before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Strike Portions of
Plaintiff’s Complaint (the Motion). Plaintiff opposes the Motion; Defendant
files a reply.
Meet and Confer
“Before filing a motion to strike…the moving party shall meet and confer
in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject
to the motion to strike for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can
be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the motion to
strike.” (Code Civ. Proc. §435.5.) Attached to their moving papers, Defendant
files the Declaration of Victor Balladares which states the parties conferred
on July 1, 2024 but were unable to come to an agreement. Nonetheless, the
requirements of Code Civ. Proc. §435.5 have been satisfied. The Court now turns
its attention to the Motion.
Discussion
Legal Standard
The court may,
upon motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper,
strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (CCP
§ 436, subd. (a).) The court may also strike 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, subd. (b).) The grounds for a motion to
strike are that the pleading has irrelevant, false, or improper matter, or has
not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws. (CCP § 436.) The grounds for
moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial
notice. (CCP § 437.)
A motion to strike any pleading must be filed “within the time allowed
to respond to a pleading”—e.g., 30 days after service of the complaint or
cross-complaint unless extended by court order or stipulation. [CCP §
435(b)(1)]. This does not affect the court's power to strike sua sponte. Courts
are specifically authorized to strike a pleading upon a motion or at any time
in the court's discretion. (CCP § 436)
The Court notes that motions to strike punitive damages may be granted,
where the alleged facts do not support conclusions of malice, fraud or
oppression. (Turman v. Turning Point of Central Calif., Inc. (2010) 191
Cal.App.4th 53, 63.)
Analysis
Defendant’s
primary argument upon filing their moving papers, is that Plaintiff’s
allegations are insufficient to support a request for punitive damages under Civ.
Code §3294, and the allegations as is do not meet the statute’s heightened
pleading standard. Plaintiff argues the contrary, contending the Complaint
contains sufficient information to support a requests for punitive damages and
to meet the heightened pleading standard.
In
the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges she was terminated because of her pregnancy,
in violation of Govt. Code §§12940 et seq (FEHA). Plaintiff was hired as a
receptionist by Defendant on November 13, 2021. (Compl., ¶16.) In early 2022,
Plaintiff began undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) in hopes of getting
pregnant. (Compl., ¶23.) Plaintiff informed the owner of APCG – Dr. Victor
Ramirez (Dr. Ramirez) – that she may need to leave her shifts early for
treatment. Dr. Ramirez stated that as long as notice to the office manager or
supervisor was given, this should not be a problem. (Id.) On April 1,
2022, Plaintiff was sick, reported the illness to her supervisor, and was
permitted to go home early. (Compl., ¶24.) The following Monday, Dr. Ramirez
notified Plaintiff her final check was ready for pick up. When asked about
whether Plaintiff was terminated, Dr. Ramirez stated that Plaintiff left work
on April 1, 2022 without permission. When both Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s
supervisor informed Dr. Ramirez Plaintiff was given permission to leave, Dr.
Ramirez gave a warning that Plaintiff would be terminated if she left early
again. (Id.)
After
discovering the IVF treatments were successful and that she became pregnant in
April of 2022, Plaintiff informed Dr. Ramirez. (Compl., ¶25.) However,
Plaintiff states that in response, Dr. Ramirez began to criticize her work and
that on May 15, 2022 she was terminated. (Id. at ¶¶25-26.)
Plaintiff
contends that these facts, being terminated shortly after notifying the owner
of APCG that she was pregnant, supports a claim for punitive damages. The Court
agrees.
Civ.
Code §3294
Civ. Code §3294 governs punitive damages and provides the following: “In
an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it
is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty
of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual
damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing
the defendant.” (Civ. Code §3294(a).) Civ. Code §3294(c)(1) provides the
following definitions shall apply to this section:
(1) “Malice” means conduct which is intended by the
defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is
carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the
rights or safety of others.
(2) “Oppression” means despicable conduct that subjects
a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's
rights.
(3) “Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation,
deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the
intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of
property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.
With regard to Defendant’s argument
that the allegations do not meet the heightened pleading requirement, the Court
disagrees. Plaintiff makes clear that she was terminated, and alleges the cause
was not proper, but based on her pregnancy which she informed Dr. Ramirez of
directly. (Compl., ¶25.) Terminating an employee based on a protected category
such as sex and/or pregnancy is a direct violation of Govt. Code § 12940.
To meet the
standard set under Civ. Code §3294, the
act alleged must fall under the definition of “malice”, “oppression”, or
“fraud”. Terminating an employee because of their pregnancy falls under the
definition of malice. The Court of Appeal affirmed such a finding in Sasco
Electric v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th
532 (“Sasco”). In Sasco the employer challenged a decision made
by the Fair Employment and Housing Commission finding the employer committed
pregnancy discrimination in violation of FEHA. In doing so the Fair Employment
and Housing Commission also found clear and convincing evidence of oppression
and malice by the employer. (Id. at 541.) After review of the facts, the
Court found the employers given reasons of terminating the employee based on
staff reduction nothing more than pretext and found there to be substantial
evidence of malice. (Id. at 536.)
At the pleadings stage, the Court
does not seek evidence but determines whether the pleadings are sufficient to
withstand the instant Motion to Strike. Here, the Court concludes they are and
denies the Motion.
Conclusion
Accordingly,
Defendant Affordable Pet Care Group of Los Angeles’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff
Jessica Anaya’s Complaint is DENIED.
It is so ordered.
Dated: August 29, 2024
_______________________
MEL RED RECANA
Judge of the
Superior Court