Defendant Fairmont Hotels & Resorts, Inc. moves to strike portions of the first amended complaint (“FAC”) filed by plaintiff Arnetta Jarrett (“Plaintiff”).

On December 27, 2013, Plaintiff filed the FAC asserting the following causes of action: (1) negligence; (2) premises liability; and (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress. According to the allegations of the FAC, Plaintiff was a guest at Defendant’s hotel in San Jose in July of 2011 for seven nights. (FAC at ¶ 9.) Halfway through her stay, Plaintiff was awakened one evening by a sensation that something was biting her leg. (Id. at ¶ 10.) Having observed no noticeable bite marks, Plaintiff went back to sleep. (Id.) The next morning, Plaintiff discovered a red mark or welt on her leg where the bite occurred. (Id. at ¶ 11.) Throughout the remainder of her trip, Plaintiff suffered from pain and swelling as a result of being bitten in her room. (Id. at ¶ 12.) Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that her hotel room was infested with bedbugs and that the bedbugs were the cause of her bite. (Id. at ¶ 13.) Plaintiff later suffered additional medical complications from the bite. (Id. at ¶ 14.)

On January 21, 2014, Defendant filed the instant motion to strike Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages and allegations relating thereto. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a).)

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has not sufficiently pleaded facts which entitle her to recover punitive damages. “In order to state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a complaint must set forth the elements as stated in the general punitive damage statute, Civil Code section 3294. [Citation.] These statutory elements include allegations that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice. [Citation.] ‘Malice’ is defined in the statute as conduct ‘intended by the defendant to cause injury to plaintiff, or despicable conduct that is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others.’ [Citations.] ‘Oppression’ means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.’ [Citation.].” (Turman v. Turning Point of Cent. California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.)

Punitive damages cannot be pleaded generally; the complaint must allege facts demonstrating the aforementioned “oppression” or “malice.” (See Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1036.) Here, Plaintiffs allegations that Defendant “had been told by guests who stayed at the Hotel that there were bedbugs on the premises” and that “[c]omplaints of bedbugs by Hotel guests were also on posted on public [sic] accessible websites” (FAC at ¶ 15) are insufficient to support the conclusion that Defendant intended to harm Plaintiff or acted recklessly in conscious disregard of her rights or safety. There are no specific facts pleaded as to when Defendant received such complaints or where bedbugs were reported. There are also no facts alleged that any bedbugs were reported or existed in the specific room or area of the hotel that Plaintiff stayed in prior to her arrival. In short, there are no facts pleaded which demonstrate that Defendant engaged in conduct which rises to level of despicable conduct that is required in order to recover punitive damages.

Consequently, Defendant’s motion to strike is GRANTED WITH 10 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND.