Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV00375, Date: 2023-05-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV00375    Hearing Date: May 3, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

This lemon law action was filed on February 22, 2023 by plaintiff Gary Garboushian (“Plaintiff”).  Defendant General Motors LLC (“Defendant”) moves to strike Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages from Plaintiff’s prayer for relief.  The motion is unopposed. 

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

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”].)    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.)

III.        DISCUSSION

A.   Meet and Confer Requirement

“Before filing a motion to strike . . . the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the objections to be raised in the motion to strike.”  (Code Civ Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a).)  If no agreement is reached, the moving party shall file and serve with the motion to strike a declaration stating either: (1) the means by which the parties met and conferred and that the parties did not reach an agreement, or (2) that the party who filed the pleading failed to respond to the meet and confer request or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a)(3).) 

The fact that this motion is unopposed leads the Court to query whether a meaningful attempt to meet and confer was actually made.   Darshnik Meet Sing Brar, counsel for Defendant, declares that his office attempted to telephonically meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel but was unsuccessful in those attempts.  (Brar Decl., ¶ 2.)  The vague and conclusory declaration does not satisfy the requirements of section 435.5(a)(3).  It is unknown whether defense counsel even tried to arrange a time with Plaintiff’s counsel over email but did not receive a response or whether defense counsel only made one phone call and considered their meet and confer obligations fulfilled when no one on the other end picked up.  This Court cannot grant or deny the motion to strike based on a finding that the meet and confer process was insufficient and, for the sake of judicial economy, the Court will not continue the matter until a sufficiently detailed declaration has been submitted.  Nevertheless, the Court impresses upon Defendant that the requirements to meet and confer as articulated in the Code of Civil Procedure serve an important purpose to conserve court resources and preserve civility.  Failure to abide by the requirements to meet and confer in the future may result in the motion being taken off calendar and rescheduled until the meet and confer process is completed. 

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).) 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.)  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.)

Defendant argues that Plaintiff does not allege any facts that would support a claim for punitive damages.  The Court agrees.  There are no allegations of oppression, fraud, or malice and punitive damages are not recoverable under the Song-Beverly Act.  Plaintiff’s remedies are limited to a refund or replacement and, in certain instances, a civil penalty which shall not exceed two times the amount of Plaintiff’s actual damages. (Civ. Code, § 1794.) 

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages is granted.

IV.         CONCLUSION 

Defendant General Motors LLC’s Motion to Strike Punitive Damages from Plaintiff’s Complaint is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

Dated this 3rd day of May 2023

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@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.