Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 23STCV17985, Date: 2023-11-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV17985    Hearing Date: November 13, 2023    Dept: 39

Angelica Campos v. Lou Sobh Cerritos Saturn, Inc.

Case No. 23STCV17985

Motion to Strike and Case Management Conference

            Plaintiff Angelica Campos (“Plaintiff”) filed this employment discrimination case against Defendant Lou Sobh Cerritos Saturn, Inc. (“Defendant”).  Now, Defendant moves to strike the prayer for punitive damages, as well as related allegations. 

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.) 

            Plaintiff does not satisfy this standard.  Plaintiff alleges:

“Defendant had in place policies and procedures that specifically prohibited and required Defendant’s managers, officers, and agents to prevent discrimination against and upon employees of Defendant.  Managers, officers, and/or agents of Defendant were aware of Defendant’s policies and procedures requiring them to prevent discrimination against and upon employees of Defendant.  However, Defendant chose to consciously and willfully ignore said policies and procedures and therefore, their outrageous conduct was fraudulent, malicious, oppressive, and was done in wanton disregard for the rights of Plaintiff.”

(Complaint, ¶ 20.)  Plaintiff does not allege specific facts to support these conclusions.  Nor does Plaintiff identify an officer, director, or managing agent at issue.  Plaintiff’s counsel provides no basis to conclude that an amendment at this stage would be successful.  Therefore, the Court grants the motion to strike without leave to amend.

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.         The parties stipulated for the Court to conduct the case management conference in advance of Defendant’s answer having been filed.  Therefore, the Court vacates the case management conference on November 28, 2023.

            4.         The Court sets the following dates:

                        Post-Mediation Status Conference:    October 28, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.

                        Final Status Conference:                    May 2, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.

                        Trial:                                                   May 13, 2025, at 9:30 a.m.

The parties shall comply with all pretrial procedures for Department #39.  The parties shall disclose all witnesses they intend to call in their respective cases-in-chief, and disclose and produce all exhibits they intend to introduce in their respective cases-in-chief, on or before April 25, 2025.  Jury fees shall be posted on or before December 29, 2023, or the parties shall waive jury.

            5.         The Court’s clerk shall provide notice.