Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 23STCV05224, Date: 2023-06-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV05224    Hearing Date: June 20, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiff Olvi R. Dominguez Quezada, by and through his guardian ad litem, Carmen Dominguez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles Unified School District (“Defendant”), Mariela Chavira, Leonor Martinez-Ramirez, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, alleging negligence, dangerous condition of public property, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  Plaintiff alleges that on May 19, 2022, a large piece of the ceiling fell from directly above Plaintiff and struck him in the head. 

Defendant, at this time, moves to strike the prayer for punitive damages and statutory interest, on the grounds that Defendant, as a public entity, cannot be liable for punitive damages or statutory interest.  Defendant also moves to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for attorney’s fees because there is no basis for such recovery under statute or contract.

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that he recognizes he is unable to recover punitive damages as to Defendant, but he is seeking punitive damages as to the individual defendants.  Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant failed to meet and confer prior to the filing of this instant motion and that the Court should overrule on that basis.

In reply, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages should be stricken as to Defendant and that Plaintiff’s opposition misses the point.  Defendant points to the Complaint which pleads: “PRAYER FOR RELIEF, WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows: c. For punitive and exemplary damages, including those authorized under C.C.C. § 3294, in an amount to be determined according to proof at trial.”  (Compl. p. 10.)  Defendant asserts that it brought this instant motion to strike on behalf of Defendant only.  Additionally, Defendant states that contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, it did comply with the meet and confer requirement as evidenced in the Sabryna D. Beckles Declaration.  Defendant also points out that Plaintiff cites to the incorrect code section with respect to the meet and confer requirement.

2. Request for Judicial Notice

         The Court GRANTS Defendants’ request for judicial notice in full.

3. Motion to Strike

California law authorizes a party’s motion to strike matter from an opposing party’s pleading if it is irrelevant, false, or improper.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 435; 436(a).)  Motions may also target pleadings or parts of pleadings which are not filed or drawn in conformity with applicable laws, rules or orders.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436(b).)  A motion to strike is used to address defects that appear on the face of a pleading or from judicially noticed matter but that are not grounds for a demurrer.  (Pierson v Sharp Memorial Hospital (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 340, 342; see also City & County of San Francisco v Strahlendorf (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1911, 1913 (motion may not be based on a party's declaration or factual representations made by counsel in the motion papers).)  In particular, a motion to strike can be used to attack the entire pleading or any part thereof – in other words, a motion may target single words or phrases, unlike demurrers.  (Warren v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 24, 40.)  California’s policy of liberal construction applies to motions to strike.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 452; see also Duffy v. Campbell (1967) 250 Cal.App.2d 662, 666 [noting that courts must resolve all reasonable doubts in favor of the pleading when considering a motion to strike].)  The Code of Civil Procedure also authorizes the Court to act on its own initiative to strike matters, empowering the Court to enter orders striking matter “at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.)

Here, Plaintiff admits that he is unable to recover punitive damages as to Defendant, but he contends that he is seeking punitive damages as to the individual defendants.  Thus, Plaintiff argues that the punitive damages allegations and prayer as to the individual defendants should not be stricken.  Additionally, Plaintiff states that he is not seeking pre-judgment interest or attorney’s fees.  The Court finds that the allegations of punitive damages and prayer for relief in the Complaint are directed to all Defendants, and not just the individual defendants.  Thus, the motion to strike is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to the individual defendants only.

4. Conclusion

         In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to strike WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to the individual defendants only.

Defendants are ordered to give notice.  

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

·       Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.

·       If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  

·       Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  

·       If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.

Dated this 20^th day of June, 2023