Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 22STCV41105, Date: 2023-09-27 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: 22STCV41105    Hearing Date: September 27, 2023    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   September 27, 2023                           

CASE NAME:           Kandace M. Dudley v. County of Los Angeles

CASE NO.:                22STCV41105

MOTION TO STRIKE  

MOVING PARTY: Defendant County of Los Angeles

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Kandace M. Dudley

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1.      An order striking various portions of the First Amended Complaint

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.      Motion to Strike is GRANTED, with leave to amend.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On December 20, 2022, Plaintiff Kandace M. Dudley (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant County of Los Angeles (“Defendant.”) The compliant alleged seven causes of action based upon discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA as well as a failure to accommodate. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff was illegally terminated. During her time working for Defendant, Plaintiff was in treatment for cancer and requested accommodations. In 2021, Plaintiff was required to go out in the field, but she requested a transfer to protect her compromised immune system. However, Defendant failed to implement the accommodation, and Plaintiff has essentially been constructively terminated.

On March 3, 2023, Defendant filed a Demurrer, with a Motion to Strike.

On May 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.

On June 16, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion to Strike. Plaintiff’s Opposition was filed on September 13, 2023. Defendant’s Reply was filed on September 19, 2023.

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 demurrer, the demurring party is required to satisfy their meet and confer obligations pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. §430.41, and demonstrate that they so satisfied their meet and confer obligation by submitting a declaration pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. §430.41(a)(2) & (3). The Declaration of Skyla L. Gordon indicates that a meet and confer letter was sent on June 8, 2023, asking that the prayer strike the pre and post judgment interest damages. Plaintiff did not receive a response and contacted Plaintiff again. Plaintiff did not provide a response as of the date of filing the Motion. (Dec. Gordon, ¶ 8-10.)

ANALYSIS:

Defendant requests that the Court strike various portions of the FAC. The specific portions are as follows:

1.      FAC, at pg. 1, lines 11-13: “Plaintiff brings this action against defendants for economic, non-economic, compensatory, pre-judgment interest pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 3291…”

2.      FAC, pg. 5, lines 4-5: “interest on unpaid wages at the legal rate from and after each payday on which those wages should have been paid, in a sum to be proven at trial.”

3.      FAC, at pg. 13, lines 2-3: “For pre-judgment (Cal. Civ. Code § 3288) and post-judgment (Cal. Civ. Code § 3287) interest on all damages awarded.”

Defendant argues that under Civil Code §§ 3278, 3288, or 3291, the County is not liable for interest damages. However, the opposition concedes that Plaintiff does not oppose the Motion to Strike as to Civil Code § 3291 and 3287. Therefore, the merits of this matter will only pertain to Civil Code § 3288.

Defendant argues that CCP § 3288 does not allow pre-judgment interest on general damages. Moreover, Defendant also argues that CCP § 3288 includes language about oppression, fraud, and malice, but Plaintiff does not allege in the FAC that any County employee acted with oppression, fraud, or malice.

Plaintiff argues that she is entitled to prejudgment interest under Civil Code § 3288 based on economic damages.

Civil Code § 3288 states: “In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, and in every case of oppression, fraud, or malice, interest may be given, in the discretion of the jury.”

            The Court finds that both parties agree that the portions of the FAC which concern Civil Code § 3291 and § 3287. As for the Civil Code § 3288, the Court finds that Defendant is correct in their argument. Under Civil Code § 3288, a party is entitled pre-judgment interest on the economic damages. The California Supreme Court stated in Greater Westchester Homeowners Association stated the following:

We have recently affirmed that, unlike Civil Code section 3287, which relates to liquidated and contractual claims, section 3288 permits discretionary prejudgment interest for unliquidated tort claims…The award of such interest represents the accretion of wealth which money or particular property could have produced during a period of loss. Using recognized and established techniques a fact finder can usually compute with fair accuracy the interest on a specific sum of money, or on property subject to specific valuation. Furthermore, the date of loss of the property is usually ascertainable, thus permitting an accurate interest computation .[citation omitted] However, damages for the intangible, noneconomic aspects of mental and emotional injury are of a different nature. They are inherently nonpecuniary, unliquidated and not readily subject to precise calculation.

(Greater Westchester Homeowners Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (1979) 26 Cal.3d 86, 102–103.)

Thus, looking at the Prayer for Relief, No. 2, the FAC incorrectly requests pre-judgment interest on “all damages awarded.” Both parties agree that pre-judgment interest pursuant to CCP § 3288 is available for economic damages.

            Motion to Strike is GRANTED, as to all requested sections.

Leave to Amend:

Leave to amend should be liberally granted if there is a reasonable possibility an amendment could cure the defect.  (County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 1018,1035.)  The Plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that leave to amend should be granted, and that the defects can be cured by amendment. (“Plaintiff must show in what manner he can amend his complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of his pleading.” Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) Here, as the parties both agree that CCP § 3288 allows for pre-judgment interest as to economic damages, the Court will allow Plaintiff to amend the FAC to request pre-judgment interest pursuant to CCP § 3288 as to economic damages only.

Leave to Amend is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION:

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

            Motion to Strike is GRANTED, with leave to amend within 10 days of service of this order.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 9/26/23                                    _________________________________                                                                                                                  Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court