Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 23STCV06471, Date: 2023-10-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV06471 Hearing Date: October 23, 2023 Dept: 39
Tyeshalei
Singleton, et al. v. Power Property Management, Inc., et al.
Case No. 23STCV06471
Motion to Strike
Case Management
Conference
Plaintiffs
filed this case against two corporate entities, Power Property Management,
Inc., and BF Properties 1 LLC asserting causes of action for breach of contract,
breach of the implied warranty of habitability, nuisance, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. Now, Defendant BF Properties 1, LLC (“Defendant”)
moves to strike the prayer for punitive damages.
Any party, within the time allowed
to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a motion to strike the whole
pleading or any part thereof. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1322, subd. (b).) On a motion to strike, the court may: (1)
strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading;
or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in
conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the
court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd.
(a)-(b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42
Cal.2d 767, 782.
In ruling on a motion to strike
punitive damages, “judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to
strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth.” (Clauson
v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.) 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.)
In this case, Plaintiffs allege
that Defendant failed to maintain the apartment Plaintiffs leased from
Defendant in a habitable condition. Plaintiffs
also allege that Defendant failed to remedy issues with the apartment even
though Plaintiffs informed Defendant of the issues. (Complaint, ¶¶ 11, 17.) Plaintiffs do not allege, however, that they
informed Defendant’s officers, directors, or managing agents of these
issues. Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendant’s
officers, directors, or managing agents acted with oppression, fraud, malice,
or reckless indifference in deciding not to remedy the alleged defects. Nor do Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s
officers, directors, or managing agents ratified the conduct of the person who
failed to remedy these issues.
Based upon the foregoing, Defendant’s
motion to strike is granted. Plaintiff
articulates no facts suggesting that any amendment would be successful at this
stage. Therefore, the Court denies leave
to amend. This order is without
prejudice to Plaintiffs seeking leave to amend to re-allege the claim for
punitive damages if they develop sufficient facts in discovery that Defendant’s
officers, directors, or managing agents acted with malice, oppression, fraud,
or recklessness or ratified such conduct by its employees.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based upon
the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:
1. Defendant’s motion to strike is granted
without leave to amend.
2. Defendant shall file an answer within
thirty (30) days.
3. Defendant’s counsel shall provide
notice and file proof of such with the Court.