Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 23STCV17095, Date: 2024-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV17095    Hearing Date: January 9, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On July 20, 2023, Plaintiff Yvette Morales filed this action against Defendant Women’s and Children’s Crisis Shelter, Inc.

On October 12, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to strike.

The court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subds. (a)-(b).)

It appears that Defendant reused a Notice of Motion template from a different case.  However, the Court understands what Defendant is actually moving to strike.

According to the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Defendant seeks to strike allegations related to punitive damages and the prayer for punitive damages.

A plaintiff can recover punitive damages in tort cases where “the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.”  (Civ. Code § 3294, subd. (a).)  “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.)

Defendant specifically seeks to strike paragraphs 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, and 50, which all allege, “The above referenced acts of Defendants were authorized or ratified by officers or managing agents of Defendants, and were done intentionally and with malice and, therefore, entitle the Plaintiff to an award punitive and exemplary damages.”  (Motion at pp. 7-8.)  Plaintiff also seeks to strike the prayer for punitive and exemplary damages.  (Id. at p. 8.)

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was issued two Performance Improvement Plan and investigated for a supposed concern shortly after announcing her pregnancy.  (Complaint ¶¶ 10, 12.)  Plaintiff was asked to do work-related tasks during her maternity leave, and she was terminated by the Board of Directors during her protected maternity leave.  (Complaint ¶¶ 17, 20-22.)  However, “wrongful termination, without more, will not sustain a finding of malice or oppression.”  (Scott v. Phoenix Schools, Inc. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 702, 717.)  Plaintiff alleges no other facts to support a finding of oppression, fraud, or malice. 

The motion to strike is GRANTED with 30 days’ leave to amend.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 9th day of January 2024