Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Case 22STCV12786 2023-03-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 22STCV12786, Date: 2023-03-16 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.

If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.

2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.

3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING. The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

Case Number: 22STCV12786 Hearing Date: March 16, 2023 Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE: March 16, 2023

CASE NAME: Nicholas Estrada v. Steve Sungho Lee, et al.

CASE NO.: 22STCV12786

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Steve Sungho Lee, SL Property Management I, LLC, SL Property Management II, LLC, Stelee Industries, Inc., L&HM Limited Partnership, and L&H Limited Partnership

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Nicholas Estrada

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1. An order striking various portions of the Complaint concerning punitive damages

TENTATIVE RULING:

1. Motion to Strike is DENIED.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On May 13, 2022, Plaintiff Nicholas Estrada (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Steve Sungho Lee, Stelee Industries, Inc., SL Property Management I LLC, SL Property Management II LLC, L & H Limited Partnership, Bio Hazard Inc., Minh V. Vo, Green Buddah LLC, Raheela Lakhany, Smoke Tokes LLC, Shafaq Aslam Sattar, ST & Company, LLC, and L&HM Limited Partnership (“Defendants.”) The complaint alleged five causes of action: (1) Civil Code § 1714.9, (2) Strict Liability (Ultrahazardous Activity), (3) Negligence, (4) Premises Liability, and (5) Punitive Damages. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff, a firefighter, sustained severe injuries while on duty at a building fire, which resulted in a massive explosion. The complaint alleges that the Defendants stored hazardous and explosive materials in an illegal and unsafe manner.

On August 9, 2022, Defendants Steve Sungho Lee, SL Property Management I, LLC, SL Property Management II, LLC, Stelee Industries, Inc., L&HM Limited Partnership, and L&H Limited Partnership filed the current Motion to Strike. Plaintiff’s Opposition was filed on October 5, 2022. Defendants’ Reply was filed on October 10, 2022.

On September 6, 2022, Defendants Bio Hazard Inc., and Minh V. Vo filed an Answer.

On September 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Related Case.

On October 6, 2022, Defendant Raheela Lakhany filed an Answer.

On October 6, 2022, Defendant ST & Company, LLC, filed an Answer.

On October 26, 2022, Defendants Green Buddah LLC, and Shafaq Aslam Sattar filed an Answer.

LEGAL STANDARD

Motion to Strike

The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436(a).) The court may also strike 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. (Id., § 436(b).) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Id. § 437.) “When the defect which justifies striking a complaint is capable of cure, the court should allow leave to amend.” (Vaccaro v. Kaiman (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 761, 768.)

Meet and Confer:

Prior to filing a motion to strike, the moving party is required to satisfy their meet and confer obligations pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. §435.5, and demonstrate that they so satisfied their meet and confer obligation by submitting a declaration pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. §435.5(a)(2). The Declaration of Michael. S. Moss attached to the Motion indicates that on July 22, 2022, Defendant’s counsel sent a letter to Plaintiff’s counsel. On July 25, 2022, the parties met and conferred via telephone but were unable to resolve the matter.

ANALYSIS:

Defendants Steve Sungho Lee, SL Property Management I, LLC, SL Property Management II, LLC, Stelee Industries, Inc., L&HM Limited Partnership, and L&H Limited Partnership move to strike portions of the Complaint that seek punitive damages. Specifically, Defendants seek to strike paragraph 2 – line 16, paragraphs 74-91, in their entirety, and paragraph 3 in the prayer for relief.

Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs’ complaint does contain sufficient allegations that are required for punitive damages. Moreover, Defendants also argue that the allegations of misdemeanor criminal charges do not support punitive damages.

After a review of the complaint, the court finds that the complaint alleges sufficient facts demonstrating malice under the “wanton and reckless disregard” and “conscious disregard for the safety of others” standard.” Here, the complaint alleges that the Defendants improperly stored “hundreds of illegally and improperly stored butane canister and thousands “illegally and improperly stored nitrous oxide cylinders.”(Complaint ¶¶ 26.) This information was not known to the firefighters when they arrived on scene who believed this call was a “routine ventilation limited structure fire.” (Complaint ¶ 27.). In fact, this information was “intentionally concealed form firefighters by omitting hazardous material identification including signs.” (Complaint ¶ 27.) Additionally, the storage of these cylinders was improper, as it violated code regulations, as it “created small, restricted aisles and narrow openings.” (Complaint ¶ 42.)Moreover, the storage of the cylinders was “floor-to-ceiling.” (Complaint ¶ 63.) Significantly, it is alleged that Defendants had access to video surveillance equipment that documented the extent of the serious violations. The complaint contains sufficient allegations of despicable conduct, in that the illegal and improper storage of highly flammable and combustible material would be considered willful and in conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.

While the Defendants contend that the actions were not willful or despicable, citing to McDonnel v. American Trust Co., the case is inapposite. The activity here involved ultrahazardous material whereas McDonnel involved failure to repair a roof. The Defendants improperly stored butane canisters and nitrous oxide cylinders in a way that concealed the contents from firefighters. Moreover, as the Supreme Court stated in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore (1996) 517 US 559, 577, a recidivist may be punished more severely. Here, the paragraph 77 of the complaint alleges that another fire in September 2016 was a result of an explosion of gas cylinders, as was the case here. Whether the criminal allegations will be admissible at trial is a separate issue better handled in a motion in limine.

Therefore, the Motion to Strike is DENIED.

CONCLUSION:

For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

Motion to Strike is DENIED.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2023 __________________________________ Upinder S. Kalra

Judge of the Superior Court