Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCV01867, Date: 2024-04-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CMCV01867 Hearing Date: April 16, 2024 Dept: A
23CMCV01867 Jeane-Marie Alexander, et al.
v. Dine Brands Global, Inc., et al.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
I.
BACKGROUND
The first amended
complaint (“FAC") alleges that Plaintiffs’ decedent was killed inside a
restaurant’s patio area after a car, driven by Defendant, Timothy William
Siaki, crashed through the restaurant while being pursued by the Sheriff’s
Department. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, International House of Pancakes
(“IHOP”), was negligent in failing to install barriers for the outdoor seating
area, which was improperly inspected and permitted by the City of Carson.
Plaintiffs allege claims for negligence and wrongful death.
II.
ARGUMENTS
Defendants,
Dine Brands Global, Incl; Dine Equity, Inc.; and International House of
Pancakes, LLC (collectively, “IHOP”) move to strike portions of the FAC in
support of the claim for punitive damages and prayer attorney’s fees. The
alleged facts do not adequately support either claim.
Plaintiffs
argue in opposition that the FAC adequately alleges that Defendants engaged in
acts to permit recovery of punitive damages.
In reply, Defendants contend that the
allegations in support of punitive damages are not alleged with specificity
against each particular Defendant who demurs to the FAC.
III.
LEGAL STANDARDS
The court may, upon motion or at any time in
its discretion and upon terms it deems proper: (1) strike out any irrelevant,
false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or
any part of the pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of
California, a court rule, or an order of the Court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436 subd (a)-(b).) Grounds for a motion
to strike are limited to matters that appear on the face of the complaint or on any matter of which the court shall
or may take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)
A plaintiff may recover on a claim for
exemplary damages where the defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud, or
malice. (Civ. Code, § 3294 subd. (a).) The predicate acts to support a claim for
punitive damages must be intended to cause injury or must constitute
“malicious” or “oppressive” conduct as defined by statute. “Malice” is defined
as “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); College
Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994)
8 Cal.4th 704, 725 ["malice involves awareness of
dangerous consequences and a willful and deliberate failure to avoid
them"].) "Oppression" is defined as “despicable conduct that
subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that
person's rights.” (Civ. Code, § 3294 subd. (a) subd. (c)(2).)
Liability for
punitive damages will not be imposed against a corporate employer absent proof
of advance knowledge or ratification by an officer, director or managing agent.
(Civ.
Code, § 3294 subd. (b).)
IV.
DISCUSSION
A.
The request to strike the prayer for attorney’s
fees is DENIED.
Recovery
of attorney’s fees is permitted where provided by contract or statute. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 1021.) It is not an abuse of discretion to refuse to strike a
claim for such fees where a plaintiff has not had a full opportunity to
determine the basis for its recovery. (Camenisch
v. Superior Court (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1689, 1699; Yassin
v. Solis (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 524, 533 ["There is no
requirement that a party plead that it is seeking attorney fees, and there is
no requirement that the ground for a fee award be specified in the
pleadings."].)
B.
The motion to strike the prayer and related
allegations for punitive damages is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants
“negligently failed to erect barriers that would have safeguarded patrons.”
(FAC, 2:18-19.) IHOP allegedly “knew or should have known” that the protection
for outdoor customers was inadequate. (FAC, ¶ 35.) IHOP knew or should have
known that the restaurant was in a busy commercial area, and it was reasonably
foreseeable that a car would crash into the outside patio. (FAC, ¶ ¶ 37.)
As Plaintiffs do not allege an intent to
injure, the predicate acts supporting punitive damages must be “despicable”
which is defined as “base, vile, or contemptible.” (College
Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994)
8 Cal.4th 704, 725.) Conduct
constituting negligence, gross negligence or recklessness is insufficient to
support a claim for punitive damages. (Dawes v. Superior Court (1980)
111 Cal.App.3d 82, 87.)
The FAC additionally fails because punitive damages against a corporate employer
requires a showing of advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization,
ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice on the part of an officer,
director or managing agent of the corporation. (Civ. Code, § 3294.) The FAC does not include allegations to
support corporate ratification of the alleged conduct.
V.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion
to strike the prayer for punitive damages and underlying paragraphs in support
is GRANTED. The Court strikes the following:
1. Page
8, Paragraph 41: “including punitive damages”;
2. Page
8, Paragraph 41: “including any penalties, punitive, or exemplary damages that
decedent would have been entitled to had he lived”;
3. Page
13, Paragraph 66: “including punitive damages” as it pertains to Defendants;
4. Page
13, Paragraph 66: “including any penalties, punitive, or exemplary damages that
decedent would have been entitled to had he lived” as it pertains to
Defendants;
5. Page
17, Prayer for Relief, Paragraph 4: “including attorneys’ fees” as it pertains
to Defendants; and
6. Page
17, Prayer for Relief, Paragraph 5: “Plaintiffs, by and through its [sic] successors-in-interest
pray judgment against all Defendants for punitive damages, according to proof”
as it pertains to Defendants.
Defendants’ motion to strike the prayer
for attorney’s fees is DENIED.
As Plaintiffs do not demonstrate how the FAC
can be cured to support recovery of punitive damages based on these facts
arising in negligence, leave to amend is DENIED. (Association
of Community Organizations for Reform Now v. Department of Industrial Relations (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 298, 302.)