Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

¿ 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Lorena Calderon filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against defendants East Valley Community Health Center, Inc. (“Defendant”) and Does 1 to 50 allegingw rongful termination due to Plaintiff’s complaints regarding medical compliance, patient care, vaccination protocols including use of expired vaccines, medical referral issues, patient missed appointments and overall complaints of management illegalities. (Compl. ¶ 7.) The FAC sets forth two causes of action for (1) Unlawful Retaliation (Whistle Blower – Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5) and (2) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy. 

On July 26, 2024, Defendant filed the instant motion to strike the (1) entirety of Paragraph 12, Page 3, (2) entirety of Paragraph 18, Page 4, (3) entirety of Paragraph 28, Page 6, and (4) the prayer for punitive damages. 

On October 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. 

On October 22, 2024, Defendant filed a reply. 

 

II. DISCUSSION 

The court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any 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, subds. (a)-(b).) 

Previously, the Hon. Judge Feeney granted Defendant’s motion to strike punitive damages with leave to amend after finding that Plaintiff had not alleged despicable conduct and also failed to name any individuals who ratified the corporate entities’ conduct. (Min. Order, June 4, 2024.) On the amended complaint, the FAC alleges in relevant part the following: Plaintiff brought up her complaints to Defendant’s managing agents Velia Macias (“Macias”) and Mynette Cannata (“Cannata”), that they tried to silence Plaintiff by telling her to speak only when spoken to, and that Defendant (through Macias and Cannata”) wrongfully terminated Plaintiff due to her complaints of Defendant’s management illegalities. (FAC ¶¶8-9.) 

A plaintiff can recover punitive damages in tort cases where the defendant “has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.”¿(Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) Punitive damages thus require more than the mere commission of a tort.¿(Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 894-895.)¿“‘Punitive damages are proper only when the tortious conduct rises to levels of extreme indifference to the plaintiff’s rights, a level which decent citizens should not have to tolerate.’¿ [Citation.]” (Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1210.) Further, the additional component of “despicable conduct” must be found, which is “conduct which is so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people.¿ Such conduct has been described as ‘having the character of outrage frequently associated with crime.’” (Tomaselli v. Transamerica Ins. Co. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1287; see also College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 725.) 

Here, the Court finds that alleged conduct of Defendant ignoring Plaintiff’s complaints and retaliating against her by terminating her employment does not rise to the level of despicable conduct that has the “character of outrage frequently associated with crime.” At most, Plaintiff has merely alleged wrongful termination. “[W]rongful termination, without more, will not sustain a finding of malice or oppression.”¿ (Scott v. Phoenix Schools, Inc. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 702, 717.) Defendant’s motion to strike the allegations and prayer for punitive damages will therefore be granted. 

 

III. CONCLUSION 

The burden is on Plaintiff to show in what manner he can amend the complaint, and how that amendment will change the legal effect of the pleading.¿ (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349; Hendy v. Losse (1991) 54 Cal.3d 723, 742.)¿Plaintiff merely reiterates the allegations contained in the FAC. 

Because this is the second time the motion to strike has been granted, Defendant’s motion to strike is GRANTED without leave to amend. 

 

Moving Party is ordered to give notice. 

 

DATED: October 28, 2024 

__________________________ 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court 

 

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 SMCDEPT78@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.