Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV09009, Date: 2022-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09009    Hearing Date: August 31, 2022    Dept: 39

Rajia Anne Baroudi v. Global Integrity Realty Corporation, et al.

Case No. 22STCV09009

Motion to Strike

            Plaintiff Rajia Anne Baroudi (“Plaintiff”) filed this habitability case against Global Integrity Realty Corporation and Chateau Nob Bill Apartments, LP (collectively, “Defendants”).  Now, Defendants move to strike the prayer for punitive damages and related allegations.

            To state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a plaintiff must allege the elements set forth in the punitive damages statute, Civil Code section 3294.  (Coll. Hosp., Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 721.)  Per Civil Code section 3294, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice.  (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).)  “Malice is defined in the statute as conduct 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.”  (Coll. Hosp., Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 725.)  “The mere allegation an intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages.  Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim.”  (Grieves v. Superior Ct. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166, internal citations and footnotes omitted.)

“[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.) 

            Plaintiff’s allegations are not sufficient, as they are general and boilerplate in nature.  For example, the complaint lacks specific facts to support Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendants’ agents knew there was mold that would affect the health and safety of Plaintiff and willfully elected not to remedy the problem.  Plaintiff does not allege specific facts regarding how and when she informed Defendants’ agents about the conditions in her unit, or how Defendants delayed in repairing the conditions.  Therefore, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         Defendants’ motion to strike is granted.

            2.         Plaintiff may file a first amended complaint within thirty (30) days.

            3.         Defendants’ counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.