Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV03018, Date: 2024-01-17 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on a tentative ruling by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 22PSCV03018    Hearing Date: January 17, 2024    Dept: G

Defendant Merchants Automotive Group, Inc.’s Motion to Strike

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Merchants Automotive Group, Inc.’s Motion to Strike is GRANTED with thirty (30) days leave to amend.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision. In January 2021, Plaintiff Anna Perez was walking along Azusa Avenue in La Puente when Perez was struck by a van. Perez alleges the van was owned by Defendant Merchants Automotive Group, Inc. (MAG) and was being operated by Defendant Dorothy Doe, who allegedly refused to give a full name and fled the scene of the accident.

On December 21, 2022, Perez filed a complaint against MAG, Doe, and Does 1-50, alleging (1) motor vehicle negligence and (2) general negligence.

On November 21, 2023, MAG filed the present motion. Prior to filing on October 24, MAG’s counsel telephonically met and conferred with Perez’s counsel and initially came to an agreement on a stipulation. (Stoker Decl., ¶ 4.) But subsequently, MAG’s counsel states Perez’s counsel failed to follow through and sign the stipulation. (Stoker Decl., ¶ 4.)

A hearing on the motion to strike is set for January 17, 2024, along with a case management conference and OSC Re: Failure to File Proof of Service.

ANALYSIS

MAG moves to strike punitive damages from Perez’s Complaint. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS MAG’s motion.

Legal Standard

Motion to Strike

Upon a party’s motion or the court’s own motion, the court may strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a).) The court may also “[s]trike 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, subd. (b).) “The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437, subd. (a).)

An immaterial or irrelevant allegation includes “(1) An allegation that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense,” “(2) An allegation that is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense,” or “(3) A demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint or cross-complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10.)

Punitive Damages

Civil Code section 3294 allows punitive damages when a plaintiff establishes by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) For the purposes of determining punitive damages, malice is defined as “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.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1).) Oppression is defined as “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(2).) Lastly, fraud is defined as “an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(3).)

“In addition to the requirement that the operative complaint set forth the elements as stated in section 3294, it must include specific factual allegations showing that defendant's conduct was oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious to support a claim for punitive damages.” (Today’s IV, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1137, 1193.) Furthermore, “[p]unitive damages may not be pleaded generally.” (Ibid.)

Discussion

In this case, MAG argues there are no allegations in the Complaint that allege MAG is guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. While the Complaint alleges Doe engaged in despicable and unreasonable conduct by fleeing the scene of the collision with Perez, the Complaint merely alleges MAG owned the van and employed Doe.

An employer may be held liable for punitive damages based on an employee’s conduct when “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.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (b).) But here, the Complaint failed to allege how MAG had advance knowledge of Doe’s unfitness or how MAG ratified or authorized Doe’s conduct in the alleged hit-and-run. Thus, the Complaint lacks sufficient allegations to support a claim of punitive damages against MAG.

Accordingly, MAG’s motion is GRANTED with leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, MAG’s motion to strike punitive damages from Perez’s Complaint is GRANTED with thirty (30) days leave to amend.