Judge Melvin D. Sandvig, Case Number: 24CHCV00173, Date: 2024-05-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 24CHCV00173, Date: 2024-05-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV00173 Hearing Date: May 30, 2024 Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 5/30/24

Case #24CHCV00173

MOTION TO STRIKE

Motion filed on 4/15/24.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant De Soto Pacific Owner 1 LLC

RESPONDING PARTY: Keyan Pittman

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order striking portions of Plaintiff’s complaint regarding punitive damages.

RULING: The motion is granted with 30 days leave to amend.

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of habitability issues at an apartment Plaintiff Keyman Pittman (Plaintiff) leased from Defendant De Soto Pacific Owner 1 LLC (Defendant). On 1/18/24, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant for: (1) Tortuous Breach of Warranty of Habitability, (2) Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment, (3) Nuisance, (4) Civil Code 1942.4, (5) Negligence and (6) Anti-Harassment Ordinance.

After meet and confer efforts failed to resolve the issues Defendant had with the complaint, on 4/15/24, Defendant filed and served the instant motion seeking an order striking portions of Plaintiff’s complaint regarding punitive damages (¶¶15, 46, 50, p.11:4-6 and Prayer ¶4). (See Farkhondeh Decl.). Plaintiff has opposed the motion and Defendant has filed a reply to the opposition.

ANALYSIS

A motion to strike is the proper vehicle to challenge a claim for punitive damages. See Grieves (1984) 157 CA3d 159, 163-164; CCP 431.10(b); CCP 435(b)(1); CCP 436.

To state a claim for punitive damages, a plaintiff must plead facts which support a finding that the defendant acted with malice, oppression or fraud against the plaintiff. Civil Code 3294; College Hospital, Inc. (1994) 8 C4th 704, 721. Conclusory allegations are insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages. Ebaugh (1972) 22 CA3d 891, 894-895.

Here, Plaintiff has failed to alleged facts to show that Defendant intended to injure him or that Defendant committed the type of despicable conduct necessary to support the claim for punitive damages. See Lackner (2006) 135 CA4th 1188, 120, 1211, fn.14; Taylor (1979) 24 C3d 890, 895-896.

Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for punitive damages against an entity defendant such as Defendant. An employer cannot be held liable for punitive damages based on the acts of an employee, unless it had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him/her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud or malice. Civil Code 3294(b). With regard to a corporate employer, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud or malice must be on the part of an officer, director or managing agent. Id. A “managing agent” includes only those corporate employees who exercise “substantial discretionary authority over decisions that ultimately determine corporate policy.” White (1999) 21 C4th 563, 565; Cruz (2000) 83 CA4th 160, 167.

Here, Plaintiff has not identified, by name or position, any managing agent of Defendant, which is a limited liability company, who engaged in malicious, fraudulent or oppressive conduct and Plaintiff has failed to plead facts to show that Defendant had advance knowledge of the unfitness of any unidentified employee of Defendant who committed such acts which were authorized or ratified by a managing agent of Defendant.

The Court also notes that at times Plaintiff refers to unidentified “Defendants,” collectively, and at other times refers to an unidentified “Defendant,” in the singular, making it unclear who Plaintiff contends did what and on behalf of whom. (See Complaint ¶¶12-16, 19, 22, 25-29, 31, 36, 38, 44, 46-47, 50, 53). Further, the complaint names a different/incorrect plaintiff, Nancy Duze,” in the opening line. (See Complaint, p.1:17).

CONCLUSION

The motion to strike is granted. Due to the liberal policy of allowing leave to amend and because this is only the original complaint, Plaintiff is given the opportunity to try to cure the defects in the pleading. A First Amended Complaint is due within 30 days.