Judge: Wesley L. Hsu, Case: 22PSCV00472, Date: 2023-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00472    Hearing Date: March 28, 2023    Dept: L

Defendant Micron Environmental Labs, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Punitive Damages from Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

 

Background   

 

Plaintiff Adriana Ledezma (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: On or about January 10, 2022, Plaintiff began working for Defendant Micron Environmental Labs, Inc. (“Defendant”) as a front office clerical worker. At the end of her first shift, Plaintiff disclosed to her superior, Nora Gamez (“Gamez”), that she was pregnant and would need to take some time off from work during the following Thursday to attend a doctor’s appointment. Plaintiff thereafter requested schedule modifications for approximately ten days between January 2022 and April 12, 2022. Defendant terminated Plaintiff on April 12, 2022.

 

On September 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), asserting causes of action against Defendant and Does 1-25 for:

 

1.      Discrimination Based on Gender/Sex (Pregnancy) in Violation of Cal. Gov’t. Code § 12940(a) (FEHA)

2.      Discrimination Based on Disability (Pregnancy) in Violation of Cal. Gov’t. Code § 12940(a)

3.      Failure to Accommodate in Violation of Cal. Gov’t. Code § 12940(m)

4.      Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of Cal. Gov’t. Code § 12940(n)

5.      Retaliation in Violation of Cal. Gov’t. Code § 12940(h)

6.      Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation in Violation of Cal. Gov’t. Code §§ 12940(j)-(k)

7.      Wrongful Termination in Violation of Cal. Gov’t. Code § 12940(a)

8.      Violation of Pregnancy Disability Leave Under Cal. Gov’t. Code § 12945

9.      Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy

 

A Case Management Conference is set for March 28, 2023.

 

Legal Standard

 

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 436, “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.” The grounds for a motion to strike must “appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)

 

Discussion

 

Defendant moves the court for an order striking out all references to exemplary/punitive damages at 17:4-7, 21:4-7, 25:7-9, 28:20-24, 32:4-7, 35:19-21, 38:25-28, 42:22-25, and Paragraph 8 of the Prayer for Relief at 46:14 of Plaintiff’s SAC.

 

Punitive damages may be awarded upon clear and convincing evidence that a defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Civ. Code § 3294, subd. (a).)

 

“Malice” is defined as “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.” (Civ. Code § 3294, subd. (c)(1).)

 

“Oppression” is defined as “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.” (Civ. Code § 3294, subd. (c)(2).) “Fraud” is defined as “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)(3).)

 

Further, “[a]n employer shall not be liable for damages pursuant to subdivision (a), based upon acts of an employee of the employer, unless the employer 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 or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. With respect to a corporate employer, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation.” (Civ. Code § 3294, subd. (b).)

 

A “conclusory characterization of defendant’s conduct as intentional, willful and fraudulent is a patently insufficient statement of ‘oppression, fraud, or malice. . .’” (Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 872.) “The mere allegation an intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages. Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud, or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim.” (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166.)

 

Here, Plaintiff has not pled facts supporting oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious conduct. Plaintiff has alleged that she started working at Defendant on January 10, 2022, that she disclosed to Nora Gamez (“Gamez”), that she was pregnant at the end of her first shift, that she requested and received approval for time off for doctor’s appointments, pregnancy-related illness or emergencies, that Gamez became “tired of [Plaintiff] taking time off,” that Gamez fired her “purely because [she] missed work and would likely miss work in the future,” and that she was fired on April 12, 2022. (SAC, ¶¶ 11, 15, 16, 24, 25 and 32).

 

“[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.)

 

The motion, then, is granted.