Case Number: BC706782 Hearing Date: August 22, 2019 Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

ANGELA YOUNG,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

GUARD-SYSTEMS INC, et al.,

Defendant(s).

Case No.: BC706782

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

August 22, 2019

I. Background Facts

On May 16, 2018, plaintiff Angela Young (“Plaintiff”), filed a complaint against defendants Guard-Systems Inc (“Guard-Systems”) and Does 1 to 50 alleging causes of action for (1) battery, (2) assault, (3) negligence, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress and (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress. The complaint includes a prayer for punitive damages.

The complaint in relevant part alleges the following: 1) On June 9, 2017, Plaintiff went to purchase groceries at Ralphs, a grocery store. (Complaint ¶ 7); 2) After paying for her items, Plaintiff began walking towards the exit when a security guard employed by Guard-Systems proceeded towards Plaintiff yelling something. (Id. ¶¶ 17-18); 3) Plaintiff stopped; however, because Plaintiff believed that the security guard was not yelling at her, Plaintiff continued walking out of the store. (Id. ¶ 19); and 4) The security guard, while acting in the scope of his employment with Guard Systems, rushed at Plaintiff, pushed her, and snatched Plaintiff’s groceries from her hands. (Id. ¶¶ 20, 24.)

On September 11, 2018, Guard-Systems filed a demurrer and a motion to strike. Plaintiff failed to file oppositions. On October 29. 2018, the Court granted the demurrer in part and overruled it in part. The Court granted the motion to strike.

On May 16, 2019 Plaintiff filed a doe amendment naming Suren Berberyan as Doe 1 to the action. Plaintiff alleges Berberyan was the security guard who performed the acts detailed above.

II. Motion to Strike

a. Meet and Confer

Before filing a demurrer or a motion to strike, the demurring or moving party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading demurred to or the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purposes of determining whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of an amended pleading that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc. §§430.41 and 435.5.)

The Court notes that Berberyan fulfilled the meet and confer requirements prior to filing this motion to strike. (See Decl. Nhan.)

b. Motion to Strike Punitive Damages

Berberyan moves the Court to strike Plaintiff’s allegations of and prayer for punitive damages on the ground that the complaint fails to plead facts sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages. Specifically, Berberyan moves to strike ¶¶ 36, 38, 39, 43, 44, 53, 54 and 55 as well as the prayer for punitive damages.

A motion to strike punitive damages allegations may lie where the facts alleged do not rise to the level of “malice, fraud or oppression” required to support a punitive damages award. (See e.g., Turman v. Turning Point of Central Calif., Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.)

Civil Code § 3294 authorizes the recovery of punitive damages in non-contract cases where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Civil Code § 3294(a).)

Malice is defined as either 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. (Civil Code § 3294(c)(1).) 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. (Mock v. Michigan Millers Mutual Ins. Co. (1992) 4 Cal. App. 4th 306, 331.) Specific facts must be pled in support of punitive damages. (See Hillard v. A.H. Robins Co. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 374, 391-92.)

The crux of Plaintiff’s complaint is that she paid for her groceries, then stood briefly by the freezer section on her way out to see if they stocked a favorite ice cream. She did not open the freezer and did not take anything out, and she turned to leave. The security guard yelled, but she did not believe it was directed at her, as she had done nothing wrong. She continued walking, and the security guard “rushed at Plaintiff, pushed her, causing her to spin around. He then immediately and violently snatched one item after another from Plaintiff’s hands.”

The Court finds the foregoing is sufficient for a reasonable juror to determine the guard acted with malice, as defined above. The motion to strike is therefore denied. Defendant is ordered to file an answer to the complaint within ten days.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.