Judge William A. Crowfoot, Case Number: 23AHCV02819, Date: 2024-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV02819, Date: 2024-03-06 Tentative Ruling

On December 6, 2023, plaintiffs Gabriela Quintero Lopez and Jorge Arnulfo Hernandez Lopez, individually and as successors-in-interest to Alma Rosa Lopez (“Decedent”), along with Claudia Lorena Martinez (“Martinez”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed this action against defendants Beador Construction Company (“Defendant”), State of California, County of Los Angeles, and City of Pasadena asserting causes of action for negligence, premises liability, and dangerous condition of public property.

Plaintiffs allege that on or about August 25, 2023, Martinez and Decedent were driving on the westbound 134 Freeway when a piece of metal from a construction site became airborne and went through the vehicle striking Decedent in the head. (Compl., ¶ 17.) Decedent later passed away from her injuries on September 16, 2023. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant negligently failed to maintain the construction site and the equipment that was used on the site, which caused the piece of metal to strike Decedent through the vehicle. (Compl., ¶¶ 21, 26.)

On January 19, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to strike Paragraphs 26, 37, and Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages.

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.)

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs fail to plead a factual basis for punitive damages. 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.)

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).) Here, Plaintiffs allege without any particular detail that Defendant was “grossly negligent” and that one or more of its respective officers, directors, or managing agents acted with malice, oppression or recklessness because these individuals “knew or should have known of their broken equipment and the lack of maintenance, inspections and supervision of the area and equipment used.” (Compl., ¶¶ 26, 37.) This conclusory and vague allegation fails to allege a factual basis supporting a prima facie finding of malice, oppression, or fraud. “Malice” is conduct intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1).) “As amended to include [despicable], the [Civil Code section 3294] plainly indicates that absent an intent to injure the plaintiff, ‘malice’ requires more than a ‘willful and conscious’ disregard of the plaintiffs’ interests. The additional component of ‘despicable conduct’ must be found.” (College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 725.) The statute’s reference to despicable conduct represents a “new substantive limitation on punitive damage awards.” (Id.) Despicable conduct is “conduct which is so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people. Such conduct has been described as ‘having the character of outrage frequently associated with crime.’” (Tomaselli v. Transamerica Ins. Co. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1287.) Further, “[t]here must be evidence that defendant acted with knowledge of the probable dangerous consequences to plaintiff’s interests and deliberately failed to avoid these consequences.” (Flyer’s Body Shop Profit Sharing Plan v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1149, 1155; see also Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1228 [“Conscious disregard for the safety of another may be sufficient where the defendant is aware of the probably dangerous consequences of his or her conduct and he or she willfully fails to avoid such consequences”].)

In addition to failing to identify any conduct rising to the level of malice, oppression, or fraud, Plaintiffs also fail to identify any conduct by an officer, director, or managing agent, as required for a corporate defendant to be liable for punitive damages. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (b).)

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to strike is GRANTED. Leave to amend is not granted at this time, but Plaintiffs may file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint if, during discovery, they find evidence that supports a prayer for punitive damages.

William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

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.