Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22CHCV01350, Date: 2023-03-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV01350    Hearing Date: March 10, 2023    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 3-10-23

Case # 22CHCV01350

Trial Date: Not Set

MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Magic Mountain, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Jimmy Chavez

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Strike Complaint

·         Prayer for punitive damages and corresponding allegations in the first, second, third, fourth, and sixth causes of action

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Jimmy Chavez was employed by Magic Mountain from January 2019 to October 25, 2021, in roller coaster maintenance. Plaintiff characterizes a back injury(ies), as a disability for which Defendant refused accommodation wrongful termination, and instead terminated Plaintiff.

On December 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Disability Discrimination, Disability Retaliation, Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process, Failure to Accommodate, Violation of the California Family Rights Act, Wrongful Termination, Failure to Provide Personnel Files, and Failure to Provide Wage and Hour Statements.

RULING: Granted

Defendant Magic Mountain LLC moves to strike the punitive damages allegations from the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth, causes of action for Disability Discrimination, Disability Retaliation, Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process, Failure to Accommodate, Violation of the California Family Rights Act, Wrongful Termination. Defendant contends the complaint both fails to allege facts supporting the punitive damages allegations in general, as well as the specificity required against the corporate employer. Plaintiff counters in opposition that the complaint sufficiently alleges a claim for punitive damages based on the conduct articulated in the complaint. Plaintiff specifically emphasizes paragraph 21(a) regarding the false and unjust accusation of Plaintiff being a “no call, no show” to work, while he was in fact out on medical leave, thereby leading to termination. Defendant in reply reiterates the basis of the motion, especially the lack of corporate direction.

Civil Code Section 3294, subdivision (c) authorizes punitive damages upon a showing of malice, oppression, or fraud, which are defined as follows:

(1) “Malice” means 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.

(2) “Oppression” means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.

(3) “Fraud” means 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.

As to a corporate employer, Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (b) states:

An employer shall not be liable for damages pursuant to subdivision (a), based upon acts of an employee of the employer, unless 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. With respect to a corporate employer, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation.

Whether a supervisor is a “managing agent” turns on whether “they exercise substantial discretionary authority over decisions that ultimately determine corporate policy.”  (White v. Ultramar, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 563, 576–577; Cruz v. HomeBase (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 160, 168.)

Punitive damages require more than the mere commission of a tort. (See Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 894-95.) Specific facts must be pled in support of punitive damages. (Hillard v. A.H. Robins Co. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 374, 391-392.) “The mere allegation an intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages. [Citation.] Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim. [Citation.]” (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166, fn. Omitted [emphasis added].)

Any negligence based causes of action in and of themselves will not support the claim for punitive damages. Plain unintentional carelessness, characterized as negligence or recklessness, is not sufficient to support punitive damages. (Nolin v. National Convenience Stores, Inc. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 279, 285-286 [“Conduct classified only as unintentional carelessness, while it may constitute negligence or even gross negligence, will not support an award of punitive damages”]; G. D. Searle & Co. v. Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 32 (“When nondeliberate injury is charged, allegations that the defendant's conduct was wrongful, willful, wanton, reckless or unlawful do not support a claim for exemplary damages; such allegations do not charge malice”]; Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 82, 87 [“Inasmuch as Civil Code section 3294 requires as a prerequisite to the recovery of punitive damages that the defendant “has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice,” the cases have uniformly recognized that proof of negligence, even gross negligence, or recklessness is insufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages’]; Ebaugh v. Rabkin (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 891; McDonell v. American Trust Co. (1955) 130 CA2d 296, 300 [Awareness of a potential condition under a negligence not sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages].)

To the extent Plaintiff relies on an intentional standard of conduct, the court finds the challenged causes of action constitute a series of conclusions. As addressed above, reliance on the circumstances that because the termination allegedly occurred during medical leave, all said actions were done with malice or oppressive motive, insufficiently meets the required standard for corporate employer punitive damages. Nothing in the alleged situation expresses actual corporate policy directing termination of employees seeking medical leave or accommodation, thereby supporting a claim for punitive damages. [Comp., ¶¶ 21-22, 28, 34-35, 37, 45, 56-57, 65-67, 73, 84-85, 90-91, 97, 110-111, 115-116, 132, 137.]

The motion to strike is granted without prejudice. Plaintiff is granted 30 days leave to amend. Plaintiff may not add any new causes of action, and only add facts supporting the punitive damages claims. If Plaintiff elects to forego filing an amended complaint, Defendant is ordered to answer the operative pleading within 10 days of the lapse of the amendment deadline.

Case Management Conference set for July 26, 2023.

Defendant to give notice.