Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 22STCV26951, Date: 2023-04-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26951    Hearing Date: April 28, 2023    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Sepulveda Property Management’s motion to strike Plaintiff Jennifer Padda’s claims for punitive damages in her complaint is GRANTED.

Defendant Sepulveda Property Management (“SPM”) (“Defendant”) moves to strike portions of Plaintiff Jennifer Padda’s (“Padda”) (“Plaintiff”) complaint (“Complaint”), specifically the claim for punitive damages in the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 9th causes of action.  (Notice of Motion, pg. 1.)  Defendant also requests that the complaint be corrected throughout to reflect that there is only one Plaintiff, Plaintiff Padda.  (Notice of Motion, pg. 1.)  Defendant’s motion is made on the grounds that the requisite elements for punitive damages are not properly pled.  (Notice of Motion, pg. 1.)

Defendant filed the instant motion on September 26, 2022.  Plaintiff filed her opposition on March 2, 2023.  As of the date of this hearing, Defendant has not filed a reply.

Motion to Strike

C.C.P. §436 provides that the Court may, upon a motion made pursuant to C.C.P. §435, or at any time within its discretion and upon terms it deems proper, “strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.”  (C.C.P. §436(a).)

Punitive Damages

Punitive damages may be recovered upon a proper showing of malice, fraud, or oppression.  (Civ. Code §3294(a).)  “Malice” is defined as conduct intended to cause injury to a person or despicable conduct carried on with a willful and conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others.  (Turman v. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.)  “Oppression” means despicable conduct subjecting a person to cruel and unjust hardship, in conscious disregard of the person’s rights.  (Id.)  “Fraud” is an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known by defendant, with intent to deprive a person of property, rights or otherwise cause injury.  (Id.)  Conclusory allegations, devoid of any factual assertions, are insufficient to support a conclusion that parties acted with oppression, fraud, or malice.  (Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1042.)

          While Plaintiff pleads causes of action for tortious breach of warranty of habitability, nuisance, negligence and negligence per se, intentional influence to vacate, and intentional infliction of emotional distress and specific facts alleged to support allegations of oppression, fraud, or malice in the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th causes of action.  (Complaint ¶¶28-35, 59-63, 69-71, 123), the allegations are conclusory and are void of the specific factual allegations required to establish an intent to injure the plaintiff or a despicable and willful disregard of her safety.  (College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 725.)

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages from her Complaint is GRANTED. Paragraphs 96, 105, 123, and 157 are stricken from the Complaint.  In addition, all references to “Plaintiffs” or “Plaintiffs’” are stricken.  Plaintiff has 30 days leave to amend. 

Dated:  April _____, 2023

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court