Case Name: Catherine Fucci Di Napoli, et al. v. Bodum USA, Inc., et al.
Case No.: 17-CV-319606

Currently before the Court is the motion by defendant Bodum USA, Inc. (“Bodum”) to strike portions of the complaint of plaintiffs Catherine Fucci Di Napoli and Francesco Fucci Di Napoli (“Francesco”), a minor, (collectively, “Plaintiffs”).

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a personal injury action. On May 20, 2017, Plaintiffs were using a Bodum French Press coffee press in the kitchen of their home. (Complaint, ¶ 10.) The coffee press “malfunctioned and/or broke when Plaintiff pressed down, using the product as it was intended, causing hot water to spray on [Plaintiffs], landing on various parts of their bodies.” (Id. at ¶ 11.) Plaintiffs suffered physical and emotional injuries as a result of the incident. (Id. at ¶¶ 11 and 20.)

The subject coffee press was purchased from defendant Mollie Stone’s Markets (“Mollie Stone’s”), and “designed, constructed, manufactured, built, assembled, inspected, distributed and/or sold” by Bodum. (Complaint, ¶¶ 4 and 10.) At all times, the “coffee press and its related parts were defective as to design, manufacture, materials, instructions, and/or warnings, causing the … coffee press and its related parts to be in a dangerous and defective condition that made them unsafe for their intended or reasonably foreseeable use.” (Id. at ¶ 19.) In addition, Bodum allegedly “negligently and carelessly designed, constructed, manufactured, built, assembled, inspected, distributed and/or sold the Bodum French Press coffee press that it was dangerous and unsafe for its intended use(s).” (Id. at ¶ 14.) Mollie Stone’s allegedly “negligently and carelessly[ ] maintained, inspected, distributed, and/or sold the Bodum French Press coffee press that it was dangerous and unsafe for its intended use(s).” (Id. at ¶ 15.) Bodum and Mollie Stone’s (collectively, “Defendants”) also “failed to adequately warn or instruct of the potential safety hazards from the Bodum French press coffee press and its related parts that caused harm to Plaintiffs.” (Id. at ¶ 25.)

Furthermore, Plaintiffs allege that Bodum “acted willfully or with conscious disregard” of their rights and safety “because there have been numerous prior incidents wherein the same or similar model Bodum French Press failed and caused injuries in the same manner.” (Complaint, ¶ 12.) They also allege that “[d]espite knowledge of the defective nature of the Bodum French Press, [Bodum] … continued to manufacture and distribute the product so that it is widely available to consumers who are unaware of the potential for serious bodily harm from using the product in a reasonably foreseeable way.” (Ibid.)

Based on the foregoing allegations, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants, alleging causes of action for: (1) negligence; (2) strict products liability; and (3) strict products liability.

On February 9, 2018, Bodum filed the instant motion to strike. Plaintiffs filed papers in opposition to the motion on May 29, 2018.

Discussion

Bodum moves to strike Plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages from the complaint.

I. Meet and Confer

Though not raised by the parties, the Court notes as a preliminary matter that Bodum failed to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5 (effective January 1, 2018) as it did not file the requisite meet and confer declaration.

Before filing a motion to strike, the moving party must “meet and confer in person or by telephone” with the opposing party to determine “whether an agreement can be reached that resolves the objections to be raised in the motion to strike.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a).) This conference should occur at least five days before the deadline to file the motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a)(2).) When filing the motion to strike, the moving party must include a declaration stating either “the means by which the moving party met and conferred with [the other party] and that the parties did not reach an agreement resolving the objections raised by the motion to strike” or [the other party] “failed to respond to the meet and confer request of the moving party or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a)(3).) “A determination by the court that the meet and confer process was insufficient is not grounds to grant or deny the motion to strike.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a)(4).)

Here, Bodum failed to file a meet and confer declaration and there is no indication in the moving papers that Bodum engaged in any meet and confer efforts before filing the motion to strike. However, in the interest of addressing the issues raised by the motion and moving the case forward, the Court will overlook—in this instance only—Bodum’s failure to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5. Bodum is admonished to remain apprised of, and to comply with, applicable law going forward.

II. Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 436, a court may strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted into any pleading or strike out all or part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) The grounds for a motion to strike must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from matters of which the court may take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437, subd. (a).) In ruling on a motion to strike, the court reads the pleading as a whole, all parts in their context, and assuming the truth of all well-pleaded allegations. (See Turman v. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63 citing Clauson v. Super. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255 (Clauson).)

III. Punitive Damages

Bodum argues that the request for punitive damages should be stricken because Plaintiffs do not allege facts showing that any of its officers, directors, or managing agents committed, ratified, or authorized the alleged wrongful conduct. Bodum further argues that the complaint does not allege sufficient facts demonstrating that its alleged conduct constitutes malice, oppression, or fraud.

To survive a motion to strike a request for punitive damages, “the ultimate facts showing an entitlement to such relief must be pled.” (Clauson, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at p. 1255.) Punitive damages are permitted “[i]n an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, 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, the punitive damages allegations against Bodum are framed in terms of malice. The statute defines “malice” 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).) Thus, in cases involving conduct performed without intent to harm, a finding of malice for punitive purposes requires proof by clear and convincing evidence that defendant’s tortious wrong amounted to despicable conduct and that such despicable conduct was carried on with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. (See College Hospital, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 725; see also Gawara v. U.S. Brass Corp. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1341, 1361.) Despicable conduct is conduct “ ‘so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people.’ ” (American Airlines, Inc. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1050 quoting Mock v. Michigan Millers Mutual Ins. Co. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 306, 331.) Additionally, to demonstrate conscious disregard, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his or her conduct, and that the defendant willfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences. (Taylor v. Super. Ct. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895-896; Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1055.)

Finally, a request for punitive damages against a corporation must allege that an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation was either personally responsible for the allegedly despicable conduct or that an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation: (1) had advance knowledge of the despicable conduct and consciously disregarded it; or (2) authorized or ratified the despicable conduct. (See Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (b).)

Upon review of Plaintiffs’ punitive damages allegations, it is readily apparent that Plaintiffs fail to adequately allege that an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation: (1) had advance knowledge of the despicable conduct and consciously disregarded it; or (2) authorized or ratified the despicable conduct. (See Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (b).) There are no facts alleged in the complaint addressing any conduct whatsoever by an officer, director, or managing agent of Bodum. Thus, the allegations of the complaint are insufficient to support the request for punitive damages.

Accordingly, the motion to strike the request for punitive damages is GRANTED, with 10 days’ leave to amend.