Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV08781, Date: 2022-10-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV08781    Hearing Date: October 5, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.       INTRODUCTION

          On March 3, 2020, plaintiffs Fred Wai Hung Yue and Tzu-Fei Chu (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendants PC Palaces Inc. (“PC Palaces”), Xuong Ha (“Ha”), Ruben Esparza (“Esparza”), Phu Mang Phang (“Phang”), David Aguilar (“Aguilar”), and William Tom and Gertrude Tom, as trustees of the Tom Family Trust.  Plaintiffs allege they were patrons of a restaurant when an argument occurred and Ha began to shoot a firearm within the premises. 

          On June 22, 2022, the Court sustained PC Palaces and Phang’s demurrer to Plaintiffs’ fourth and fifth causes of action for negligence and negligent hiring, supervision and retention, with 20 days’ leave to amend.  The Court held that the motion to strike Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages as to their sixth cause of action for false imprisonment would be considered with respect to any amended Complaint. 

          On July 19, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). 

          On September 1, 2022, PC Palaces and Phang filed this motion to strike portions of Plaintiffs’ FAC, including: (1) the fourth and fifth causes of action for being untimely, and (2) the prayer for punitive damages with respect to Plaintiffs’ false imprisonment claim.

II.      LEGAL STANDARDS

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1).)  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, subd. (a); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782 [“Matter in a pleading which is not essential to the claim is surplusage; probative facts are surplusage and may be stricken out or disregarded”].)  The court may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with California law, a court rule, or an order of the court.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).)  An immaterial or irrelevant allegation is one that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense; is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense; or a demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10, subd. (b).)  The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment.  (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.)  The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully.  (Ibid.)

III.     DISCUSSION

A.   Meet and Confer

Before filing a motion to strike, the moving party shall meet and confer with the party who has filed the pleading and shall file a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a).)

Sydney D. Taylor, counsel for Defendants, declares that the parties met and conferred over the telephone on August 16, 2022.  (Taylor Decl., ¶ 10.)  The meet and confer requirement is satisfied.

B.   Punitive Damages 

          Punitive damages may be imposed where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).)  An employer shall not be liable for punitive damages based on the acts of an employee, 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 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 motion to strike punitive damages is properly granted where a plaintiff does not state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, including allegations that defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud or malice.  (Turman v. Turning Point of Cent. California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.)  “Mere negligence, even gross negligence, is not sufficient to justify such an award” for punitive damages.  (Kendall Yacht Corp. v. United California Bank (1975) 50 Cal. App. 3d 949, 958.)  The allegations supporting a request for punitive damages must be alleged with specificity; conclusory allegations without sufficient facts are not enough.  (Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1041-1042.)

Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages in connection with Plaintiffs’ false imprisonment cause of action.  The Court agrees that Plaintiffs fail to state specific factual allegations demonstrating fraud, oppression, or malice by either PC Palaces or Phang, or PC Palaces’ employees because Plaintiff only generally alleges that “[All of the] [d]efendants intentionally deprived Plaintiffs of their freedom of movement when [all of the ] [d]efendants’ employees locked the doors of the premises to prevent patrons from exiting as [Ha] shot several rounds of his firearm.”  (FAC, ¶ 47.)  There are no allegations that PC Palaces or Phang specifically acted with fraud, oppression, or that PC Palaces or Phang is vicariously responsible for actions of any employee. 

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages is GRANTED.  

C.   Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action

Defendants argue that the Court should strike the Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action in the FAC because the FAC was untimely filed.  A noticed motion may be filed to strike an amended pleading if it the amended pleading is filed after the time allowed.  (CRC 3.1320, subd. (f).)  Dismissal in these circumstances is within the Court’s discretion.  Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 438(h)(4)(A), “if an amended complaint is filed after the time to file an amended complaint has expired, then the court may strike the complaint pursuant to Section 436 and enter judgment in favor of that defendant against that plaintiff or a plaintiff.”  Similarly, the court may dismiss the complaint as to a defendant when a plaintiff fails to amend it within the time allowed and a party moves for dismissal.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 581, subd. (f)(2).)  

Defendants served a notice of ruling on June 22, 2022, by electronic service.  Therefore, Plaintiffs had to file and serve their FAC by July 14, 2022.  Instead, Plaintiffs filed the amended complaint on July 19, 2022.  The Court is not inclined to strike the FAC based on timeliness, but Plaintiffs wholly fail to address this issue.  Accordingly, the hearing on this motion is CONTINUED so that Plaintiffs may provide supplemental briefing, not to exceed 5 pages, explaining why the FAC was not timely filed. 

IV.     CONCLUSION

The hearing is continued to November 8, 2022 at 1:30 p.m.  Plaintiffs are ordered to submit a supplemental brief and evidence explaining the reason for the untimely filing of their FAC.  The supplemental brief must be filed no later than October 19, 2022.  Defendants may submit a response to Plaintiffs’ supplemental brief by November 2, 2022.  The supplemental brief and response must not exceed five pages. 

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.