Judge Michael Small, Case Number: 23STCV16384, Date: 2023-11-13 Tentative Ruling

Inform the clerk if you submit on the tentative ruling. If moving and opposing parties submit, no appearance is necessary.

Defendants motion to strike from Plaintiffs' complaint the request for punitive damages and all references to punitive damages is denied.

Defendants' motion is predicated on the proposition that the Plaintiffs' complaint contains insufficient allegations that would furnish a basis for an award of punitive damages against the Defendants. To support that proposition, Defendants highlight a series of paragraphs that, standing alone, would not establish the foundation for an award of punitive damages.

The problem for Defendants is that the highlighted allegations must be read together with all of the other allegations in the complaint, not by themselves. (Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6 [in considering a motion to strike allegations of entitlement to punitive damages, “[w]hat is important is that the complaint as a whole contain sufficient facts to apprise the defendant of the basis upon which plaintiff is seeking [that] relief.” The language that is the subject of the motion to strike “must be read . . . in the context of the facts alleged in the rest of the [plaintiff’s] complaint.”; see also Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255 [“In ruling on a motion to strike [a punitive damages claim], courts do not read allegations in isolation.”].) When read as a whole, the complaint contains sufficient allegations that would support a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the Defendants' acted with the requisite culpability to justify an award of punitive damages against the Defendants.