Judge: Richard Y. Lee, Case: 2022-01252924, Date: 2022-08-22 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Strike

Defendants’ Motion to Strike Paragraphs 42 and 43 and Prayer 7 of the First Amended Relief is GRANTED with fifteen (15) days leave to amend.

A court may strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading or strike out 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. (Code Civ. Proc. § 436; Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 19, 22 fn.1.)

A motion to strike may also seek to strike legal conclusions, (Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide, Civil Proc. before Trial, ¶ 7:179 (2010), although conclusory allegations are permitted if they are supported by other factual allegations in the complaint, (Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6).

Civil Code section 3294(a) allows a plaintiff to seek punitive damages for “oppression, fraud, or malice.” (Civil Code. § 3294, subd. (a).)  Civil Code section 3294(c) defines “malice” to mean “conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” (Civil Code. § 3294, subd. (c).) 

In order to survive a motion to strike punitive damages, the plaintiff must plead ultimate facts to show the plaintiff is entitled to such relief. (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166.)  “In order to state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a complaint must set forth the elements as stated in the general punitive damage statute, Civil Code section 3294.” (Turman v. Turning Point of Cent. California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.) 

Conclusory characterization of defendant’s conduct as intentional, willful, and fraudulent is an insufficient statement of “oppression, fraud, or malice” within the meaning of Section 3294. (Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 872.)  Regardless of the relaxed criteria for pleading, “allegations that the Defendant’s conduct was wrongful, willful, wanton, reckless or unlawful do not support a claim for exemplary damages; such allegations do not charge malice.” (G.D. Searle & Co. v. Superior Court (1974) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 29.)

“’Conscious disregard of rights is conduct by a defendant who is aware of the probable dangerous consequences of such conduct to plaintiff's interests and wilfully and deliberately fails to avoid those consequences.’” (Scott v. Phoenix Schools, Inc. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 702, 716-717.)

Plaintiff failed to allege specific facts to support the allegations for punitive damages. The First Amended Complaint (FAC) does not allege that the defendants were aware of the probable dangerous consequences of thrown balls or that they wilfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences, such as by failing to put protective netting.  In fact, Plaintiff does not assert that the accident occurred due Defendants’ willful and deliberate failure.

While there are instances where fans have been injured by foul balls, there is no allegation of prior injuries from a thrown ball or that Defendants were aware of such injuries.

In addition, Civil Code section 3294(b) provides that:

An employer shall not be liable for damages pursuant to subdivision (a), based upon acts of an employee of the employer, unless the employer had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. With respect to a corporate employer, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation.

(Civil Code. § 3294, subd. (b).)

Plaintiff also failed to allege that a particular officer, director, or managing agent acted with conscious disregard for the rights or safety of fans from thrown balls or wilfully and deliberately failed to avoid injury from thrown balls.

The general allegations of the FAC do not satisfy the requirements to allege punitive damages.

Defendants shall give notice of this ruling.