Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 24STCV31693, Date: 2025-04-29 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 24STCV31693    Hearing Date: April 29, 2025    Dept: 34

Defendant Eye Physicians of Long Beach’s Motion to Strike portions of Plaintiff’s complaint is GRANTED.

The court will inquire whether leave to amend should be granted at the hearing.

Background

On December 3, 2024, Plaintiff Laura Razo (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Eye Physicians of Long Beach (“Defendant”) arising from Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant alleging causes of action for:

1.           Violation of California’s Whistleblower Laws;

2.           Failure to Provide Proper Rest Periods;

3.           Failure to Provide Proper Meal Periods;

4.           Failure to Pay Overtime;

5.           Failure to Pay Minimum Wages;

6.           Failure to Reimburse Work Related Expenses;

7.           Failure to Provide Proper Wage Statements;

8.           Failure to Timely Pay Wages Upon Termination;

9.           Unfair Competition; and

10.        Violation of The Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

On April 3, 2025, Defendant filed this Motion to Strike. On April 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On April 22, 2025, Defendant filed a reply.

Legal Standard

            The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436(a).) The court may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Id., § 436(b).) The grounds for a motion to strike are that the pleading has irrelevant, false or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws. (Id., § 436.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Id., § 437.) “When the defect which justifies striking a complaint is capable of cure, the court should allow leave to amend.” (Vaccaro v. Kaiman (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 761, 768.) 

Discussion

            Defendant seeks to strike the following portions of Plaintiff’s complaint regarding punitive damages:

1.     Pages 7-8, Paragraph 29: “The acts of Defendants alleged above were done maliciously and/or oppressively. The foregoing acts directed toward Plaintiff were carried out by managerial employees, officers and directors, and were directed and ratified by Defendants, with a conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and with the intent to vex, injury [sic], and annoy Plaintiff, such as to constitute oppression, fraud or malice pursuant to California Civil Code section 3294, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish and set an example of said Defendants.”

2.     Plaintiff’s Prayer for Damages, Page 16, Paragraph 7: “Punitive and/or exemplary damages, if allowed[.]”

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s allegations of Defendant’s conduct are broad and conclusive, which is insufficient to warrant punitive damages. (Motion, at pp. 4-6.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the complaint contains ample and legally sufficient allegations to support a claim for punitive damages based on her first cause of action for intentional and tortious wrongdoing. (Opp., at p. 2.)

Punitive damages are appropriate when a defendant acted with malice, oppression, or fraud. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (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 Cent. Cal., 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. (Ibid.) “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. (Ibid.)  

The court finds that Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to warrant punitive damages. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment after Plaintiff complained about not receiving appropriate rest periods and compensation according to law. (Complaint, ¶¶ 1, 24.) Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff after confronting Defendant regarding errors in a patient’s treatment and cataract surgery. (Id., ¶¶ 1, 4-5, 7, 24.) In support of Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s conduct was “done maliciously and/or oppressively.” (Id., ¶ 29.) Without nothing more, the court does not find that Defendant’s alleged conduct rises to the level of malice or oppression required for punitive damages. Moreover, Plaintiff’s 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.) 

Conclusion

Defendant Eye Physicians of Long Beach’s Motion to Strike portions of Plaintiff’s complaint is GRANTED.

The court will inquire whether leave to amend should be granted at the hearing.