Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 21STCV18579, Date: 2023-12-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV18579 Hearing Date: March 20, 2024 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 3/20/24
TRIAL DATE: 9/9/24
Case #21STCV18579
MOTION TO
STRIKE
Motion filed on 2/13/24.
MOVING PARTY: Defendant The Clorox Company
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Valeria Segoviano Hernandez
NOTICE: ok
1. Paragraph 19
in its entirety (page 8, lines 4-6);
2. Paragraph 21
in its entirety (page 8, lines 12-14);
3. Paragraph 22
in its entirety (page 8, lines 16-23);
4. Paragraph 23
in its entirety (pages 8-9, lines 25-3);
5. Paragraph 24
in its entirety (page 9, lines 5-7);
6. Paragraph 26
in its entirety (page 9, lines 13-19);
7. Paragraph 28
in its entirety (pages 9-10, lines 27-4);
8. Paragraph 29
in its entirety (page 10, lines 6-10);
9. Paragraph 30
in its entirety (page 10, lines 12-16);
10. Paragraph 31
in its entirety (page 10, lines 18-19);
11. Page 12,
line 5: “damages as reflected in the Statement of Damages served herewith”;
12. Paragraph 39
in its entirety (page 12, lines 8-9);
13. Page 13,
line 12: “damages as reflected in the Statement of Damages served herewith”;
14. Page 14,
line 15: “damages as reflected in the Statement of Damages served herewith”;
and 15. Prayer for Relief, Page 14, line 23: “Punitive damages against
Defendant The Clorox Company, Inc., only.”
RULING: The
motion is denied. Answer is due within
20 days.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out of an incident that occurred on
5/25/20 at a Walmart located in Stevenson Ranch, California. On that date at the Walmart, Plaintiff
Valeria Segoviano Hernandez (Plaintiff)
grabbed a bottle of Clorox bleach from the top shelf. Plaintiff claims that the cap on the bottle
was not secured causing it to spill all over her right arm causing her injury
and permanent scarring.
On 5/18/21, Plaintiff filed this action against
Defendants Walmart Inc. (Walmart) and The Clorox Company (Clorox) for general
negligence, premises liability and products liability. On 6/21/21, Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint alleging the same three causes of action. On 8/10/23, pursuant to stipulation and
order, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging causes of action
for: (1) Strict Liability – Design Defect, (2) Negligence – Failure to Recall
and (3) Negligence. The Second Amended
Complaint included a claim for punitive damages against Clorox. Clorox filed a motion to strike the claim and
in response, on 1/10/24, Plaintiff, again pursuant to a stipulation and order,
filed the operative Third Amended Complaint alleging causes of action for: (1)
Strict Liability – Design Defect, (2) Negligence – Failure to Recall and (3)
Negligence. The Third Amended Complaint also
includes a claim for punitive damages against Clorox in relation Plaintiff’s 1st
cause of action. (Third Amended Complaint
(TAC) ¶39).
After meet and confer efforts did not resolve the issues
Clorox had with the Third Amended Complaint, on 2/13/24, Clorox filed and
served the instant motion seeking an order striking irrelevant portions of the
Third Amended Complaint and portions regarding punitive damages. Specifically, Clorox seeks an order striking the
following portions of Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint: (1) Paragraph 19 in
its entirety (page 8, lines 4-6); (2) Paragraph 21 in its entirety (page 8,
lines 12-14); (3) Paragraph 22 in its entirety (page 8, lines 16-23); (4) Paragraph
23 in its entirety (pages 8-9, lines 25-3); (5) Paragraph 24 in its entirety
(page 9, lines 5-7); (6) Paragraph 26 in its entirety (page 9, lines 13-19); (7)
Paragraph 28 in its entirety (pages 9-10, lines 27-4); (8) Paragraph 29 in its
entirety (page 10, lines 6-10); (9) Paragraph 30 in its entirety (page 10,
lines 12-16); (10) Paragraph 31 in its entirety (page 10, lines 18-19); (11) Page
12, line 5: “damages as reflected in the Statement of Damages served herewith”;
(12) Paragraph 39 in its entirety (page 12, lines 8-9); (13) Page 13, line 12:
“damages as reflected in the Statement of Damages served herewith”; (14) Page
14, line 15: “damages as reflected in the Statement of Damages served
herewith”; and (15) Prayer for Relief, Page 14, line 23: “Punitive damages
against Defendant The Clorox Company, Inc., only.”
Plaintiff has opposed the motion and Clorox has filed a
reply to the opposition.
ANALYSIS
The Court may strike out any part of a pleading not drawn
or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order
of the court, or any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any
pleading. CCP 435; CCP 436(a), (b).
To support a claim for punitive damages, a plaintiff must
allege ultimate facts to support a finding that defendant acted with fraud,
oppression or malice as defined by Civil Code 3294. See Civil Code 3294(c); Cyrus
(1976) 65 CA3d 306, 316-317; Grieves (1984) 157 CA3d 159, 166.
When read as a whole, the Court finds that Third Amended
Complaint includes sufficient facts to support a finding that the alleged acts
and/or omissions of Clorox, allegedly committed with the knowledge,
ratification and/or authorization of its officers, directors, and/or managing
agents, are sufficient to support a finding of fraud, oppression and/or malice
on the part of Clorox. In sum, Plaintiff
has alleged that Clorox was aware of the dangers posed by its product, bleach,
yet failed to take sufficient and known steps to minimize those risks in order
to save money. (See TAC
¶¶15-31).
The Court finds that the allegations in the Third Amended
Complaint regarding dangers associated with the product not directly at issue
in this case are still relevant to show Clorox’s knowledge of the dangerous
nature of the product and its alleged failure to take additional steps to
protect the public against such dangers.
With regard to the allegations which reference a
Statement of Damages which was not served with the Third Amended Complaint, and
according to the reply has still not been served, Plaintiff is ordered to serve
a Statement of Damages on or before 3/21/24.
CONCLUSION
The motion is denied.
Answer is due within 20 days. If
Plaintiff’s fail to comply with the above order to serve a Statement of Damages
on or before 3/21/24, Clorox may request by ex parte application that the
portions of the Third Amended Complaint which reference the Statement of
Damages be stricken (specifically, Page 12, line 5: “damages as reflected in
the Statement of Damages served herewith”; Paragraph 39 in its entirety (page
12, lines 8-9); Page 13, line 12: “damages as reflected in the Statement of
Damages served herewith”; and Page 14, line 15: “damages as reflected in the
Statement of Damages served herewith.”).