Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 2STCV15503, Date: 2024-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 2STCV15503    Hearing Date: March 21, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On July 3, 2023, Plaintiff Ying Wang filed this action against Defendant DCH Torrance Imports, Inc.

On September 25, 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).)

Defendants seek to strike portions of paragraphs 35, 43, 57, 69, and 79, which repeat the same allegations: “In doing the acts herein alleged, Defendant acted maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, in an intentional and deliberate manner, in violation of Plaintiff’s civil rights, and with a conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial according to Civil Code § 3294 et seq, and according to proof.”  Defendant also seeks to strike 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.)  “[W]rongful termination, without more, will not sustain a finding of malice or oppression.”  (Scott v. Phoenix Schools, Inc. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 702, 717.) 

A corporate employer can be liable for punitive damages only when an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation 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, authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct, or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.  (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (b).)

The Complaint does not allege any specific facts showing that Defendant engaged in conduct amounting to fraud, malice, or oppression.  It also does not allege any specific facts about ratification or conduct that can be attributed to it as an entity.

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 19th day of March 2024