Case Name: Brandolyn Reading v. A.J.T. & Sons, Inc.
Case No.: 17-CV-314501

I. Background

This lawsuit arises from a bar fight. Defendant Karen Hernandez (“Hernandez”) acted verbally and physically confrontational towards plaintiff Brandolyn Reading (“Plaintiff”) and other patrons one night at the Britannia Arms Almaden. (Compl. at p. 5.) Plaintiff alleges staff at the bar served Hernandez alcohol until she was extremely intoxicated, but subsequently escorted her from the premises when it became clear she presented a danger. (Ibid.) Another employee then escorted Hernandez back into the premises and seated her at the table where Plaintiff sat with her friends so they could “workout [their] issues.” (Ibid.) When Plaintiff tried to extricate herself from the situation, Hernandez attacked her, kicking her in the face and knocking her to the ground. (Ibid.) Plaintiff suffered a traumatic brain injury, broken nose, and oral trauma. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff asserts causes of action against Hernandez for premises liability, general negligence, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff asserts causes of action against defendant A.J.T. & Sons, Inc., doing business as Britannia Arms Almaden (“Britannia”), for premises liability, general negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff seeks to recover punitive damages from Britannia on the basis it acted with malice, fraud, and oppression. (Compl. at p. 11.)

Currently before the Court is Britannia’s motion to strike the punitive damages allegations in the complaint.

II. Discussion

A party may move to strike improper allegations in a pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 435, subd. (b)(1), 436.) If a claim for punitive damages is not properly pleaded, the claim and/or related allegations may be stricken. (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 164.) In order to plead a claim for punitive damages, a plaintiff must allege the defendant was guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud and the ultimate facts underlying such allegations. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a); Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.)

Britannia argues Plaintiff’s allegations, although showing negligence, do not rise to the level of malice sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages. Although Britannia advances this argument, it does not compare the allegations to the definition of malice or discuss analogous cases. Britannia quotes large blocks of general law on punitive damages without any analysis. Thus, from the outset, Britannia does not adequately support its motion.

“‘Malice’ means 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).) Despicable conduct is conduct that is “‘so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people.’ [Citation.]” (American Airlines, Inc. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1050.) Unless there is an allegation of intent to harm, a plaintiff must allege the defendant was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his or her conduct and willfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences. (Taylor v. Super. Ct. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895-96.)

Here, Plaintiff alleges Britannia’s staff knew Hernandez was intoxicated, had been acting aggressively towards her and others, and posed a danger to her and others such that staff escorted Hernandez from the premises. Thus, Plaintiff adequately alleges Britannia’s staff knew of the probable dangerous consequences of having Hernandez in the bar. Plaintiff also alleges Britannia’s staff, with this knowledge, brought Hernandez back into the bar specifically to confront her. In other words, Britannia’s staff knew an altercation was likely and specifically put Plaintiff at risk of an altercation, which occurred when she tried to remove herself from the situation. Plaintiff therefore adequately alleges Britannia’s staff willfully and deliberately failed to avoid the probable dangerous consequences of allowing Hernandez to remain in the bar. Consequently, Britannia’s argument lacks merit.

Additionally, Britannia does not adequately support its motion because it does not address the other bases for Plaintiff’s punitive damages claim. Plaintiff seeks punitive damages based on malice, oppression, and fraud, but Britannia does not advance any arguments with respect to whether Plaintiff adequately alleges oppression or fraud.

Based on the foregoing, the motion to strike is DENIED.