Judge: Michael J. Strickroth, Case: 2022-01282338, Date: 2023-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint

Defendant, Tiffany Trudeau’s (Defendant) Motion to Strike Portions of First Amended Complaint (Motion) is DENIED.

Defendant moves the court for an order striking the following from the FAC:

• On page 3, ¶ 14(a)(2), which reads as follows: “punitive damages”.

• On page 5, Second Cause of Action, which reads in part as follows: “… Trudeau’s actions were so outrageous and beyond the bounds of decency that it shocked the witness to this incident and shocks the conscience of any decent person. Trudeau must have known that her conduct would cause severe physical pain and emotional distress given the speed and force of impact. Trudeau’s actions were patently done with malice aforethought and oppression and/or with total disregard for the health and safety of Buie. Buie did not consent to this act and a reasonable person in Buie’s situation would have been offended and astonished by the actions of Trudeau. ...”

• On page 6, Third Cause of Action, which reads in part as follows: “… Trudeau’s actions were so outrageous and beyond the bounds of decency that it shocked the witness to this incident and shocks the conscience of any decent person. Trudeau must have known that her conduct would cause severe physical pain and emotional distress given the speed and force of impact. Trudeau’s actions were patently done with malice aforethought and oppression and/or with total disregard for the health and safety of Buie. Buie did not consent to this act and a reasonable person in Buie’s situation would have been offended and astonished by the actions of Trudeau. ...”

• Page 7, Exemplary Damages Attachment, in its entirety.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 436, “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 inserted 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.”  The grounds for a motion to strike must “appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.”  Code Civ. Proc., § 437. 

Motions to strike are used to challenge defects in the pleadings not subject to demurrer.  Ferraro v. Camarlinghi (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 509, 529 [recognizing that an objection that the complaint failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is ground for a general demurrer, not a motion to strike.].  Any party may move to strike the whole or any part of a pleading within the time allotted to respond to the pleading.  Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1).  The allegations of a complaint “must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.”  Code Civ. Proc., § 452.  The court “read[s] allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume[s] their truth.”  Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.

Defendant moves to strike the First Amended Complaint’s (FAC) punitive damages allegations and prayer for punitive damages on the grounds that the FAC pleads only conclusory allegations insufficient to demonstrate that Defendant acted with malice, oppression or fraud to support a claim for punitive damages.

Plaintiff may recover damages “in an action from breach “not arising from contract” if Plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant acted with malice, oppression, or fraud. Civil Code, § 3294 subd. (a). “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.”  Civ. Code, § 3294 subd. (c)(1).  “Oppression’ means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.”  Civ. Code, § 3294 subd. (c)(2).  “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.”  Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(3).  A plaintiff’s “conclusory characterization of defendant’s conduct as intentional, willful and fraudulent is a patently insufficient statement of ‘oppression, fraud, or malice, express or implied, within the meaning of section 3294.”  Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864. 

In Opposition, Plaintiff contends the FAC is sufficiently pled to support a claim for punitive damages because the first, second and third paragraphs of the second and third causes of action and the Exemplary Damages Attachment are sufficient for this purpose. Specifically, these paragraphs allege Defendant either intended to injure Plaintiff or acted with a conscious disregard of her rights and safety when Defendant pushed a shopping cart into Plaintiff at a high rate of speed and did not stop to offer any assistance

Liberally construing the FAC in favor of Plaintiff, the Court finds the FAC is sufficient to allege Defendant acted with malice or a conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights or safety. As Plaintiff points out, the Exemplary Damages Attachment (page 5 of FAC) is sufficient to allege malice because it alleges that Defendant, “without slowing down and with an intent to cause injury”, pushed her shopping cart into Plaintiff. After Plaintiff fell, Defendant “did not stop or apologize, but immediately and without any hesitation stated in a cold and callous manner” that Plaintiff should have moved. Defendant allegedly then walked away without attempting to help Plaintiff.

The Court finds such allegations are sufficient to support a prayer for punitive damages at the pleadings stage.

Therefore, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff to give notice.