Judge Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case Number: 20STCV35230, Date: 2023-09-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 20STCV35230, Date: 2023-09-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV35230 Hearing Date: September 11, 2023 Dept: 39

Dr. James J. Issacs v. Pathway Vet Alliance, et al.

Case No. 20STCV35230

Final Status Conference

A. Logistical Issues

1. Plaintiff’s Claims – In the operative first amended complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action: (1) Intentional infliction of emotional distress, (2) Negligence, and (3) Trespass to chattel. Plaintiff seeks punitive damages.

2. Time Estimate – The parties estimate that the testimony will take 22.5 hours in total. Based upon the record, as well as the Court’s experience trying civil cases, the Court finds that this estimate is excessive. The Court sets an estimate of nine (9) hours for each side for the entire trial except for voir dire. Voir dire will be handled separately and shall not count against this estimate.

B. Plaintiff’s Requested Jury Instructions

3. Elements of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”) – CACI 1600 requires Plaintiff to prove that Defendant “intended to cause [him] emotional distress,” or that Defendant “acted with reckless disregard of the probability that [Dr. Issacs] would suffer emotional distress, knowing that [he] was present when the conduct occurred.” Plaintiff argues that he should be able to pursue an IIED claim based upon reckless conduct that occurred outside his presence. The law does not support that argument. The California Supreme Court has held that the conduct must be directed toward the plaintiff, i.e., the conduct was intended to cause emotional distress, or the conduct must “occur in the presence of a plaintiff of whom the defendant is aware.” (Christensen v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 868, 903.) Plaintiff cannot assert a cause of action for IIED for conduct that occurred outside his presence unless he proves the conduct Defendant intended to cause him emotional distress. Therefore, the Court will not modify CACI 1600 in the manner requested by Plaintiff.

4. Civil Code section 1838 – Plaintiff requests an instruction on Civil Code section 1838. The Court will give a special instruction with modifications as follows:

The law states: If a thing is injured during its deposit, and the depositary refuses to inform the depositor of the circumstances under which the injury occurred, so far as he has information concerning them, or willfully misrepresents the circumstances to him, the depositary is presumed to have voluntarily and intentionally, or by gross negligence, permitted the injury to occur. If so, the burden shifts to Defendant to rebut this presumption.

5. Civil Code section 3340 – Plaintiff’s operative first amended complaint seeks exemplary damages under Civil Code section 3340, which states: “For wrongful injuries to animals being subjects of property, committed willfully or by gross negligence, in disregard of humanity, exemplary damages may be given.” Section 3340 exemplary damages may be sought as a remedy for violations of other causes of action. (Berry v. Frazier (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 1258, 1276.) However, Defendant is a corporation. “[T]he imposition of punitive damages upon a corporation is based upon its own fault. It is not imposed vicariously by virtue of the fault of others.” (City Products Corp. v. Globe Indemnity Co. (1979) 88 Cal. App. 3d 31, 36.)

Corporations are legal entities which do not have minds capable of recklessness, wickedness, or intent to injure or deceive. An award of punitive damages against a corporation therefore must rest on the malice of the corporation’s employees. But the law does not impute every employee’s malice to the corporation. Instead, the punitive damages statute requires proof of malice among corporate leaders: the officers, directors, or managing agents.

(Cruz v. Home Base (2000) 83 Cal. App. 4th 160, 167, internal quotations and citation omitted.) Therefore, Plaintiff must proof that the officers, directors, or managing agents of Defendant were responsible for the injury.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court shall not give CACI 3294, which instructs that there are no punitive damages. Instead, the Court shall instruct the jury as follows based upon CACI 3945 and Civil Code section 3340:

PUNITIVE DAMAGES JURY INSTRUCTION

If you decide that defendant’s conduct caused Plaintiff harm, you must decide whether that conduct justifies an award of punitive damages. The purposes of punitive damages are to punish a wrongdoer for the conduct that harmed the plaintiff and to discourage similar conduct in the future.

You may award punitive damages against Defendant Pathway Vet Alliance, LLC on the first cause of action (intentional infliction of emotional distress) and the third cause of action (trespass to chattel) only if Plaintiff proves the following by clear and convincing evidence:

1. Defendant voluntarily and intentionally injured Plaintiff’s cat; and

2. The injury was in disregard of humanity, i.e., inhumane; and

3. One of the following:

a. The conduct causing the injury was committed by one or more officers, directors, or managing agents of Defendant, who acted on behalf of Defendant; or

b. The conduct causing the injury was authorized by one or more officers, directors, or managing agents of Defendant; or

c. One or more officers, directors, or managing agents of Defendant knew of the conduct causing the injury and adopted or approved that conduct after it occurred.

You may award punitive damages against Defendant Pathway Vet Alliance, LLC on the second cause of action (negligence) only if Plaintiff proves the following by clear and convincing evidence:

1. Defendant was grossly negligent, which caused injury to Plaintiff’s cat;

2. The injury was in disregard of humanity, i.e., inhumane; and

3. One of the following:

a. The conduct causing the injury was committed by one or more officers, directors, or managing agents of Defendant, who acted on behalf of Defendant; or

b. The conduct causing the injury was authorized by one or more officers, directors, or managing agents of Defendant; or

c. One or more officers, directors, or managing agents of Defendant knew of the conduct causing the injury and adopted or approved that conduct after it occurred.

There is no fixed formula for determining the amount of punitive damages, and you are not required to award any punitive damages. If you decide to award punitive damages, you should consider all of the following factors in determining the amount:

a. How reprehensible was Defendant’s conduct? In deciding how reprehensible Defendant’s conduct was, you may consider, among other factors:

1. Whether the conduct caused physical harm;

2. Whether Defendant disregarded the health or safety of others;

3. Whether Plaintiff was financially weak or vulnerable and Defendant knew Plaintiff was financially weak or vulnerable and took advantage of him;

4. Whether Defendant’s conduct involved a pattern or practice; and

5. Whether Defendant acted with trickery or deceit.

b. Is there a reasonable relationship between the amount of punitive damages and Plaintiff’s harm, or between the amount of punitive damages and potential harm to Plaintiff that Defendant knew was likely to occur because of his conduct?

c. In view of Defendant’s financial condition, what amount is necessary to punish him and discourage future wrongful conduct? You may not increase the punitive damages award above an amount that is otherwise appropriate merely because Defendant has substantial financial resources.

Punitive damages may not be used to punish Defendant for the impact of its alleged misconduct on persons other than Plaintiff.

6. Plaintiff’s Additional CACI Instructions – Plaintiff requests a series of additional instructions under CACI. The Court will determine whether they apply at the close of evidence.

C. Defendant’s Requested Instructions

7. Special Instruction: “Animals are Property under the Law” – Defendant seeks an instruction that animals are property and the “[t]he amount of the monetary damages that an animal owner may recover for negligent harm to an animal are to be determined in the same way as damages recoverable for harm to any other sort of personal property.” The Court cannot determine whether this instruction is appropriate until the close of evidence. In fact, emotional distress damages may be recovered for injury to an animal that forms the basis of a claim for trespass to chattels. (See, e.g., Plotnik v. Meihaus (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1590, 1608.) Similarly, punitive damages may be available in this case under Civil Code section 3340. The Court will consider giving this instruction if the only cause of action to be decided is a simple negligence claim.

8. Special Instruction: “Emotional Distress Damages Not Recoverable for Negligent Injury to an Animal” – See above.

9. CACI 2101 – This instruction is the essential factual elements of trespass to chattels. The Court is required to give this instruction.

10. CACI 3900 – This is a required instruction in tort cases.

11. CACI 3903J – This is a required instruction in tort cases.

12. CACI 3903O – This is a required instruction in cases involving injuries to animals. However, this instruction shall not necessary prevent Plaintiff from recovering emotional distress damages for the trespass to chattel claim or punitive damages under Civil Code section 3340.