Judge Stephen P. Pfahler, Case Number: 23STCV22636, Date: 2024-05-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23STCV22636, Date: 2024-05-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV22636 Hearing Date: May 8, 2024 Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 5-8-24 a/f 7-24-24

Case # 23STCV22636

Trial Date: Not Set

MOTION TO STRIKE

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Mrs. Gooch’s Natural Foods Market, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Juan Centeno

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Strike First Amended Complaint

· Allegations in Support of, and Claim for, Punitive Damages

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On June 22, 2022, Plaintiff Juan Centeno was hired with Defendant Mrs. Gooch’s Natural Foods Market, Inc. dba Whole Foods Market as a “grocery team member.” Plaintiff suffers from epilepsy as well as learning impediments thereby impacting the uptake in learning new tasks. The inability to complete job assignments within the assigned work shift and disinclination to paying overtime led to written reprimand of Plaintiff. Notwithstanding requests for additional time or assistance from coworkers, no such accommodation was made. Defendant was terminated on March 17, 2023. During the employment period, Plaintiff also alleges labor violations such as missed break periods, due to trying to meet deadlines, and lack of reimbursement for certain work related expenses.

On September 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint for 1. Discrimination Based on Disability in Violation of the FEHA 2. Harassment Based on Disability in Violation of the FEHA 3. Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of the FEHA 4. Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation in Violation of the FEHA 5. Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA 6. Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA 7. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy 8. Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods 9. Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods 10. Failure to Pay Minimum Wages 11. Failure to Pay Overtime Wages 12. Failure to Pay Timely Wages During Employment 13. Failure to Pay All Wages Due to Discharged and Quitting Employees 14. Failure to Maintain Required Records 15. Failure to Furnish Accurate, Itemized Wage Statements 16. Failure to Reimburse Necessary Expenditures and 17. Unfair and Unlawful Business Practices. On December 5, 2023, the court granted the motion to strike.

On January 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint for 1. Discrimination Based on Disability in Violation of the FEHA 2. Harassment Based on Disability in Violation of the FEHA 3. Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of the FEHA 4. Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation in Violation of the FEHA 5. Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA 6. Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA 7. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy 8. Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods 9. Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods 10. Failure to Pay Minimum Wages 11. Failure to Pay Overtime Wages 12. Failure to Pay Timely Wages During Employment 13. Failure to Pay All Wages Due to Discharged and Quitting Employees 14. Failure to Maintain Required Records 15. Failure to Furnish Accurate, Itemized Wage Statements 16. Failure to Reimburse Necessary Expenditures and 17. Unfair and Unlawful Business Practices. On February 22, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed Whole Foods Market California, Inc. without prejudice.

RULING: Granted.

Defendant Mrs. Gooch’s Natural Foods Market, Inc. brings a motion to strike the allegations in support of, and claim for, punitive damages in the first amended complaint, as pled in the and prayersfor relief. [First Amend. Comp., ¶¶ 38-39, 52-53, 66-67, 79-80, 92-93, 101-102, 114-115, Prayer, ¶ 8.] Defendant challenges the claim for punitive damages based on a lack of any showing of malicious or oppressive conduct, in particular, attributable conduct attributable to corporate policy and ratification. Plaintiff in opposition contends the claim for punitive damages is supported and sufficiently pled, and the court should follow a less factual particularity standard when reviewing a motion to strike. The court electronic filing system shows no reply on file at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff. Defendant in reply reiterates the arguments regarding the lack of facts supporting punitive damages.

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.

Plaintiff represents seeking to plead the claim under the malice and oppression standard only. Contrary to the argument of Plaintiff regarding a less particular factual standard for a motion to strike punitive damages claims, specific facts must be pled in support of punitive damages. (Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1042; Mock v. Michigan Millers Mutual Ins. Co. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 306, 332 [Clear and convincing evidence leading to a high probability finding of malice or oppression governs punitive damages recovery]; Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166, fn. Omitted [“Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim”]; Hillard v. A.H. Robins Co. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 374, 391.)

The operative complaint itself depends on an allegation of articulating that the existence of the work performance issues, lack of accommodation and subsequent termination as demonstrative of malicious or oppressive conduct from the alleged circumstances. (Colucci v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 442, 455; Monge v. Superior Court (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 503, 511.) Plaintiff concludes with allegations of ratification regarding the lack of accommodation. (White v. Ultramar, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 563, 576–577; Cruz v. HomeBase (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 160, 168.)

While the circumstances can support a finding of malicious and improper conduct, the court finds the recitation of conclusions within the operative complaint insufficiently meets the pleading standard for punitive damages against an employer. The description of substandard supervision practices insufficiently establishes a direct nexus to a company policy demonstrating a conscious and intentional disregard for necessary accommodations and intentional violations of wage and hour standards.

As this is the first review of the action and only the second consideration of the punitive damages claim, court policy favors leave to amend. Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5, subd. (e)(1).) The motion to strike is therefore granted without prejudice/with 20 days leave to amend. If Plaintiff elects to forego the filing of a second amended complaint, remaining Defendant to answer the operative complaint within 10 days of the lapse of the amendment date.

Mrs. Gooch’s Natural Foods Market, Inc. to give notice.