Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 22STCV02254, Date: 2023-12-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV02254, Date: 2023-12-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV02254 Hearing Date: February 29, 2024 Dept: 29

Motion to Strike filed by Defendants Aaron Barsalou and Psyclarity Health Inc., LLC.

TENTATIVE

The motion to strike is granted with leave to amend.

Background

This case arises out of injuries suffered by Plaintiff Austin Parnell (“Plaintiff’) on September 17, 2021. Plaintiff alleges that while he was in a rehabilitation facility, and had a known high risk of suicide, he was allowed to access the second floor of the facility; he then jumped from a balcony, sustaining severe and permanent injuries.

On January 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action asserting a single cause of action for negligence against Defendants Aaron Barsalou (“Barsalou”); Psyclarity Health Inc., LLC (“Psyclarity”); The Giving Tree LLC; Goldwing Recovery Co.; and Does 1 through 100.

On March 20, 2022, Defendants Aaron Barsalou and Psyclarity filed an answer to the complaint.

On August 10, 2022, the Court, at the request of Plaintiff, dismissed all claims against Goldwing Recovery Co. without prejudice.

On November 3, 2023, Defendant The Giving Tree LLC (“Giving Tree”) filed a demurrer and a motion to strike the punitive damages allegations. On December 4, 2023, the Court overruled the demurrer and granted the motion to strike with leave to amend.

Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) on December 19, 2023.

Defendants Barsalou and Psyclarity (collectively “Defendants”) filed this motion to strike the punitive damages allegation against them on February 1, 2024. Plaintiff filed his opposition on February 20, 2024, which was not timely. Defendants filed their reply on February 22, 2024.

Legal Standard

A motion to strike challenges “any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading” or “all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) In ruling on a motion to strike, the court must assume the truth of the properly pleaded facts in the complaint or other pleading. (Turman v. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.)

Before filing a motion to strike, the moving party must meet and confer with the opposing party. (Code Civ. Proc., §435.5(a).)

Procedural Matters

Defendants satisfied the statutory meet and confer requirements. (Gobran Decl., ¶¶ 4-6.)

The Court exercises its discretion to consider Plaintiff’s late-filed opposition.

Discussion

Plaintiff asserts a cause of action against Defendant for negligence. Plaintiff also requests punitive damages. (Complaint, at p. 5:3, Prayer for Relief, second item numbered 4.) Defendants move to strike that request.

“‘In order to state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a complaint must set forth the elements as stated in the general punitive damage statute, Civil Code section 3294.” (Today IV’s Inc. v. Los Angeles County MTA (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1137, 1193.) Civil Code section 3294 provides that on a non-contract cause of action, a plaintiff may recover punitive damages when they prove “by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” (Civil Code § 3294, subd. (a).)

“Oppression” is defined as “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(2).) “Fraud” is defined as “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.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(3).) “Malice” is defined as “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.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1).) The term “despicable,” which is used in the definition of “oppression” and “malice” refers to actions that are “base,” “vile,” or “contemptible.” (See, e.g., Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc. (2000) 78 Cal. App. 4th 847, 891.) In general, punitive damages are appropriate if the defendant's acts are reprehensible, fraudulent or in blatant violation of law or policy. (American Airlines, Inc. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1017.)

To show that a defendant acted with “willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others,” it is not enough to establish negligence, gross negligence or even recklessness. (Dawes v. Super. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 82, 87.) Rather, a plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating that “the defendant acted in such an outrageous and reprehensible manner that the jury could infer that he knowingly disregarded the substantial certainty of injury to others.” (Id. at p. 90). Further, the allegations must be sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that defendant’s conduct was “despicable,” defined as “base, vile or contemptible.” (College Hosp., Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 725.)

In a complaint, the plaintiff must allege specific facts showing that the defendant has been guilty of malice, oppression or fraud. (Id. at p. 721.) The basis for punitive damages must be pleaded with particularity; conclusory allegations devoid of any factual assertions are insufficient. (Smith v. Super. Ct. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1042; see also Anschutz Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Snepp (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 598, 643.)

The Court has reviewed the FAC and the arguments of each side. As this Court previously ruled in connection with Giving Tree’s motion to strike the punitive damages allegations in the initial complaint, the Court concludes that the FAC fails to state facts with sufficient particularity to support a claim against Defendants for the recovery of punitive damages. The FAC states facts that are sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendants for negligence, and the FAC alleges that Plaintiff sustained horrible injuries as a result of Defendants’ negligence, but that alone is not enough to recover punitive damages.

The Court again grants Plaintiff leave to amend. Based on the arguments made by Plaintiff in his opposition to the motion, there is at least some reasonable possibility that he will be able to allege facts, with sufficient particularity, that would (if proven) establish that Defendants engaged in conduct that meets the test for oppression, fraud, or malice. (See Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) Plaintiff should not assume, however, that he will receive any further leave to amend with regard to the punitive damages allegations.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion with leave to amend.

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to strike the phrase “For exemplary or punitive damages according to proof” on page 5, line 3 of the Complaint, as it relates to Defendants Aaron Barsalou and Psyclarity Health Inc., LLC.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 14 days of notice of this ruling.

Defendants are ORDERED to respond to Plaintiff’s operative pleading by the later of (1) 28 days from notice of this order or (2) 21 days from service of any further amended complaint.

Defendants are ordered to give notice.