Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV37191, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV37191    Hearing Date: May 18, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Motion to Strike

Moving Party:  Defendant Crenshaw Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Los Angeles, CA, Inc.

Resp. Party:    Plaintiff K.H.

Defendant Crenshaw Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Los Angeles, CA, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to amend her Complaint. Any motion by Plaintiff that seeks leave to amend the Complaint to include the treble damages claim and prayer for relief must include affidavits and must be heard no later than five days after the last date to hear a discovery-related motion in this matter.

BACKGROUND:

On November 28, 2022, Plaintiff K.H. filed her Complaint against Defendants Doe 1, Doe 2, and Doe 3 on causes of action arising from an alleged sexual assault on Plaintiff by Doe 3.

On February 22, 2023, the Court permitted Plaintiff to serve Defendants with the Summons and the Complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1.

On April 20, 2023, Defendant Crenshaw Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Los Angeles, CA, Inc. (“Defendant”, sued as “Doe 2”) filed its Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Motion”). Defendant concurrently filed: (1) Request for Judicial Notice; and (2) Proposed Order.

On May 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed her Opposition.

On May 11, 2023, Defendant filed its Reply.

ANALYSIS:

I.           Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following items:

(1)       Business Search for “Crenshaw Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Los Angeles, CA, Inc.” on the California Secretary of State’s website; and

(2)       Defendant’s Restated Articles of Incorporation, filed with the California Secretary of State.

The Court GRANTS judicial notice of these items.

II.        Legal Standard

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1)). The notice of motion to strike a portion of a pleading shall quote in full the portions sought to be stricken except where the motion is to strike an entire paragraph, cause of action, count or defense. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1322.)¿¿¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or form any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437, subd. (a).) The court then may strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading and 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) When the defect which justifies striking a complaint is capable of cure, the court should allow leave to amend. (Perlman v. Mun. Ct. (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 568, 575.)¿¿¿¿¿ 

III.     Discussion

A.      The Parties’ Arguments

Defendant requests that, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.14, the Court strike Paragraph 71 and the Third Prayer for Relief from the Complaint, both of which regard Plaintiff’s request for treble damages pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1, subdivision (b)(2). (Motion, pp. 2:11–27, 5:5–6.)

Plaintiff opposes the Motion, arguing that Code of Civil Procedure section 425.14 does not apply here because the treble damages requested are compensatory, not punitive. (Opposition, p. 5:9–15.) In the alternative, Plaintiff requests leave to amend her Complaint. (Id. at 5:15–16.)

Defendant reiterates its arguments in its Reply and further argues that Plaintiff cannot cure the defective pleading of treble damages. (Reply, p. 2:21–22.)

B.      Relevant Law

“In an action for recovery of damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual assault, the time for commencement of the action shall be . . . for any of the following actions: . . . (2) An action for liability against any person or entity who owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, if a wrongful or negligent act by that person or entity was a legal cause of the childhood sexual assault that resulted in the injury to the plaintiff. . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.1, subd. (a)(2).)

“In an action described in subdivision (a), a person who is sexually assaulted and proves it was as the result of a cover up may recover up to treble damages against a defendant who is found to have covered up the sexual assault of a minor, unless prohibited by another law.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.1, subd. (b)(1).)

“For purposes of this subdivision, a ‘cover up’ is a concerted effort to hide evidence relating to childhood sexual assault.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.1, subd. (b)(2).)

“No claim for punitive or exemplary damages against a religious corporation or religious corporation sole shall be included in a complaint or other pleading unless the court enters an order allowing an amended pleading that includes a claim for punitive or exemplary damages to be filed. The court may allow the filing of an amended pleading claiming punitive or exemplary damages on a motion by the party seeking the amended pleading and upon a finding, on the basis of the supporting and opposing affidavits presented, that the plaintiff has established evidence which substantiates that plaintiff will meet the clear and convincing standard of proof under Section 3294 of the Civil Code. Nothing in this section is intended to affect the plaintiff’s right to discover evidence on the issue of punitive or exemplary damages.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.14.)

“Section 425.14 restricts the pleadings of punitive damage claims against religious corporations by requiring the plaintiff to first ‘substantiate’ the claim.” (College Hosp. Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 717–18.)

“[S]ection 425.14’s threshold pleading requirement neither restricts the heightened penalties authorized . . . nor increases the plaintiff’s burden of proof. It simply mandates a prima facie showing of merit . . . earlier in the proceedings, rather than later.” (Little Co. of Mary Hosp. v. Super. Ct. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 261, 271.)

The treble damages authorized by section 340.1, subd. (b)(1) “are primarily intended to punish, resemble punitive damages, and lack a compensatory purpose.” (K.M. v. Grossmont Union High School Dist. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 717, 750.) “And, even if the Legislature did intend treble damages to aid in compensation for cases involving coverups, it still does not follow that treble damages were not primarily punitive.” (Id. at p. 745.) “We conclude the statutory text supports . . . that the treble damages provision is punitive, not compensatory[.]” (Id. at 743.)

C.         Requirements and Evidence Submitted

Defendant has demonstrated that it is a religious corporation. (See Request for Judicial Notice, Nos. 1 and 2.)

Multiple Courts of Appeal have assessed the recent amendments to Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1 and concluded its treble damages provision is punitive, not compensatory. (K.M., supra, at 743; see also X.M. v. Super. Ct. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 1014, 1020 (“We conclude the primary purpose of section 340.1’s treble damages provision is punitive because it was designed to deter future cover ups by punishing past ones.”) Thus, as Plaintiff pleads treble damages (a form of punitive damages) against Defendant (a religious corporation) Plaintiff must meet the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.14.

Plaintiff has not yet met those requirements. First, the Court has not yet allowed an amended pleading that includes a claim for the requested punitive damages. Second, the Parties have not yet submitted supporting and opposing affidavits. Third, no other evidence has yet been submitted, so the Court is not able to determine whether Plaintiff will meet the clear and convincing standard of proof. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.14.)

Notably, section 425.14 states that “[n]othing in this section is intended to affect the plaintiff’s right to discover evidence on the issues of punitive or exemplary damages.”

IV.       Conclusion

Defendant Crenshaw Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Los Angeles, CA, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to amend her Complaint. Any motion by Plaintiff that seeks leave to amend the Complaint to include the treble damages claim and prayer for relief must include affidavits and must be heard no later than five days after the last date to hear a discovery-related motion in this matter.