Case Name: Nguyen v. Altos Enterprises, Inc., et al.
Case No.: 1-13-CV-256618

Defendants Altos Enterprises, Inc. and Albert Wang (collectively, “Defendants”) move to strike portions of the first amended complaint (“FAC”) filed by plaintiff Hai Van Nguyen (“Plaintiff”).

This is an action arising out of an alleged robbery that occurred in the parking lot of a 7-Eleven convenience store located in San Jose on December 10, 2011. Plaintiff alleges that prior to this incident, there had been numerous similar acts of violence on the premises of which Defendants were aware. Despite this awareness of the dangerous condition around the premises, Defendants did not warn Plaintiff of those dangers or take any security measures to protect him from harm. On April 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed the FAC asserting claims for general negligence and premises liability.

On May 23, 2014, Defendants filed the instant motion to strike Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 435 and 436.) Defendants assert that Plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to support an award of such damages.

Pursuant to Civil Code section 3294, punitive damages may be recovered “where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice.” Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are guilty of malice and oppression. 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).)
Punitive damages claims cannot be pleaded generally; that is, the complaint must allege facts showing statutory “oppression,” “malice” or “fraud.” In determining whether a plaintiff has stated facts sufficient to sustain punitive damages, the allegations of the complaint are to be read in the context of other facts alleged in the complaint. (See Monge v. Superior Court (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 503; see also Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6.) In unintentional tort cases, such as the one at bar, conclusory allegations that the defendant acted “wilfully,” “maliciously,” etc., or with “conscious disregard,” are insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages; the plaintiff must plead facts to support such conclusion. (Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864.)

Here, when read in its entirety, the FAC does not contain facts which demonstrate “despicable conduct”- i.e., “conduct that is so mean, vile, base or contemptible that it would be looked down on and despised by reasonable people” (see CACI Nos. 3940, 3941)- on the part of Defendants. Plaintiff previously alleged knowledge on the part of Defendants of past violent acts on the store premises; the Court deemed this insufficient in its order on Defendants’ prior motion to strike. In the FAC, Plaintiff has merely provided additional detail regarding the specific nature of these past acts, but these details do not establish that Defendants acted in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s safety such that punitive damages are warranted. Consequently, Defendants’ motion to strike is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.