Judge Richard S. Whitney, Case 37-2023-00015729-CU-WT-CTL 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2023-00015729-CU-WT-CTL, Date: 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - February 21, 2024

02/23/2024 10:30:00 AM C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Wrongful Termination Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2023-00015729-CU-WT-CTL ESTRADA VS MV PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: DEFENDANT MV TRANSPORTATION, INC.'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ('FAC') is GRANTED, in part.

Defendant MV TRANSPORTATION, INC. ('Defendant') seeks to strike allegations pertaining to punitive damages and prejudgment interest sought by Plaintiff JESSICA RENEE ESTADA ('Plaintiff'). Pursuant to CCP section 436, the Court has discretion at any time to strike portions of pleadings, including irrelevant, immaterial, and improper allegations. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) A claim for punitive damages must be specifically pled and show facts that, if proved, demonstrates the requisite degree of culpability necessary for imposing exemplary damages under Civil Code Section 3294. (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166-167.) A plaintiff's allegations are sufficient if the complaint alleges despicable conduct carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. (College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 713.) Jury Instructions for punitive damages define 'Despicable conduct' as 'conduct that is so vile, base, or contemptible that it would be looked down on and despised by reasonable people.' (CACI 3940.) Despicable 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 [citation omitted].) Allegations should not be stricken if as a whole and in the context the facts 'describe a knowing and deliberate state of mind from which a conscious, disregard of [Plaintiff's] rights might be inferred-a state of mind which would sustain an award of punitive damages.' (Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6.) Plaintiff does not dispute the allegations as to prejudgment interest should be stricken. The motion is granted as to prejudgment interest.

As to punitive damages, Plaintiff does use conclusory language, but the important question is whether there are sufficient facts alleged to support such conclusory language. Here, Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, the following: (1) while on medical leave Defendant tricked Plaintiff into believing she was driving a great distance to come in for a drug test when in fact she was being terminated, (2) Defendant lied to Plaintiff that her position was being eliminated (Defendant advertised open jobs for substantially the same position), (3) Defendant lied that there were no available positions open (even though Plaintiff pleaded based on her having three littles ones' at home), and (4) suggested Plaintiff apply for unemployment but contested her unemployment based on the assertion that Plaintiff was still on medical leave. (FAC, ¶¶ 17-21.) Defendant cites Turman v. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, for support. In Turman the court found the allegations that were sufficient to support a cause of action for Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3034783 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: ESTRADA VS MV PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION INC [IMAGED] 37-2023-00015729-CU-WT-CTL gender discrimination were not enough to support punitive damages. (Id. at 63-64.) The plaintiff in Turman alleged her supervisor was dismissive of the plaintiff's complaints about male half-way-house residents being abusive towards her when the abuse (calling her names) continued for around two years. (Id. at 56-57.) The plaintiff alleged the abuse arose because the supervisor failed to cite the residents for violations as much as the plaintiff did. (Id.) Here, Plaintiff alleges Defendant's 'Human Resources Manager' lied to Plaintiff in multiple ways (FAC, ¶¶ 17-21.) The supervisor in Turman did not lie to the plaintiff as part of the discrimination, but apparently acted selfishly to not cite residents and to be dismissive of the plaintiff's complaints. It appears the supervisor did not knowingly and with a deliberate state of mind disregard the plaintiff's rights. Here, the 'Human Resources Manager' lied to the Plaintiff in multiple ways when the 'Human Resources Manager' should have known that it would cause Plaintiff harm. The Court finds the allegations are sufficiently particular to potentially support punitive damages.

While Defendant asserts the allegations are insufficient to support a managing agent carried out the conduct and/or ratified the conduct, Plaintiff explicitly alleges 'the alleged wrongful conduct was carried out and ratified by a managing agent; or an officer, a director, or a managing agent and Defendant had advance knowledge of the unfitness of its decision-maker and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights and/or authorized and/or ratified his or her conduct.' (FAC, ¶ 40.) Further, as discussed above, the conduct was by Defendant's 'Human Resources Manager.' The Court must accept as true the inference that Defendant's 'Human Resources Manager' was 'an officer, a director, or a managing agent.' Whether Defendant's 'Human Resources Manager' was not actually 'an officer, a director, or a managing agent' of Defendant may not be resolved via demurrer. The Court notes Defendant's citation to White v. Ultramar, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 563, is unavailing as it did not address a demurrer (it was a jury verdict).

The motion is granted as to prejudgment interest but denied as to punitive damages.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3034783