Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV25497, Date: 2024-11-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV25497 Hearing Date: November 22, 2024 Dept: 29
Goto
v. Li
23STCV25497
Defendant’s Motion to Strike
Tentative
The motion is granted.
Background
On October 19,
2023, Mari Goto (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Bo Li (“Li”), Uber
Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), Rasier LLC (“Rasier”), Rasier-CA, LLC (“Rasier-CA”),
and Does 1 to 40, asserting causes of action for (1) negligence – motor
vehicle, (2) negligence – common carriers, (3) negligence per se, (4) negligent
hiring, retention, and supervision, and (5) vicarious liability – negligence,
all arising out of an automobile accident occurring on October 19, 2021.
On February 2,
2024, Defendants Uber, Rasier, and Rasier-CA filed an answer to the complaint.
On March 11,
2024, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name Fredy Garcia Hernandez as Doe 1 and
Jairo Sandoval as Doe 2.
On April 25,
2024, Defendants Freddy Garcia-Hernandez and Jairo Sandoval filed an answer to
the complaint and a cross-complaint against Li, Uber, Rasier, and Rasier-CA.
On May 14, 2024,
the Court granted Uber’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed litigation of
Plaintiff’s claims against Uber (only).
On August 2,
2024, based on a stipulation, the Court ordered arbitration of Plaintiff’s
claims against Rasier and Rasier-CA.
On October 28,
2024, Defendant Li filed an answer to the complaint and also this motion to
strike.
No
opposition has been filed.
Legal
Standard
Under Code of Civil
Procedure section 435, “Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading
may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof.”
(Code Civ. Proc. § 435, subd. (b)(1).)
Code of Civil
Procedure section 436 provides as follows:
“The court may, upon a
motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon
terms it deems proper:
(a) Strike out any
irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.
(b) Strike out 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.)
Discussion
As a threshold matter,
the Court finds that the meet and confer requirement of Code of Civil Procedure
section 435.5 is satisfied. (Harris Decl., ¶¶ 7-8.)
Li requests that the Court strike the
allegations in the complaint relating to punitive damages.
To recover punitive
damages in a tort action, Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (a), requires that
a plaintiff prove by clear and convincing evidence “that the defendant has been
guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” In subdivision (c), the Legislature
defines the terms “oppression,” “fraud,” and “malice” for purposes of section
3294:
(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.
(Civ. Code, § 3294,
subd. (c)(1)-(3).)
To plead a claim for
punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294, a plaintiff must allege specific
facts showing that the defendant has been guilty of malice, oppression or
fraud. (College Hospital, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 721; Smith
v. Super. Ct. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1042.) The basis for punitive
damages must be pleaded with specificity; conclusory allegations devoid of any
factual assertions are insufficient. (Ibid.; see also Anschutz
Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Snepp (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 598, 643.) A
motion to strike may lie where the facts alleged, if proven, would not support
a finding that the defendant acted with malice, fraud or oppression. (Today
IV’s Inc. v. Los Angeles County MTA (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1137, 1193; Turman,
supra, 191 Cal.App.4th at p. 63.)
In addition, in 1987,
the Legislature amended Civil Code Section 3294 to add the reference to “despicable”
conduct as part of the definition of malice. This was “a new substantive
limitation on punitive damage awards.” (College Hospital, supra,
8 Cal.4th at p. 725.)
“Used in its ordinary
sense, the adjective ‘despicable’ is a powerful term that refers to circumstances
that are ‘base,’ ‘vile,’ or ‘contemptible.’ (4 Oxford English Dict. (2d ed.
1989) p. 529.) As amended to include this word, the statute plainly indicates
that absent an intent to injure the plaintiff, ‘malice’ requires more than a
‘willful and conscious’ disregard of the plaintiffs' interests. The additional
component of ‘despicable conduct’ must be found.” (Ibid.; see also
CACI 3940 [“Despicable conduct is conduct that is so vile, base, or
contemptible that it would be looked down on and despised by reasonable
people.”].)
Pleading negligence,
gross negligence, or even recklessness is not sufficient. (Dawes v. Super. Ct.
(1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 82, 87.) Rather, a plaintiff must allege facts
demonstrating that the defendant intended to cause harm to plaintiff or “acted
in such an outrageous and reprehensible manner that the jury could infer that
[the defendant] knowingly disregarded the substantial certainty of injury to
others.” (Id. at p. 90; see also, e.g., American
Airlines, Inc. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton (2002) 96
Cal.App.4th 1017.).
The Court has reviewed
Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff does not sufficiently allege a basis to
recover punitive damages with the particularity required by the case law.
As this is the first
challenge to the pleading, and the challenge is based on the sufficiency of the
allegations, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend.
Accordingly, the motion
to strike is granted with leave to amend.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS
Defendant Li’s motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages on page 13, paragraph
5 of the complaint.
The Court GRANTS
Plaintiff leave to amend within 10 days of notice.