2017-00218963-CU-PO

Gary St. Pierre vs. Goodwill Industries International, Inc.

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint

Filed By: Miller, J. Scott

Defendant Goodwill Industries of Sacramento Valley & N. Nevada, aka Goodwill Industries of Sacramento Valley & Northern Nevada, Inc.’s (“Goodwill”) Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint alleging punitive damages is unopposed, taken as a concession to the merits, and is granted, with leave to amend.

Plaintiff alleges claims for assault and battery, among others, arising out of his being tackled and detained by security personnel at a Goodwill store in Redding.

The Complaint alleges that “Defendant employers knowingly employed unfit employees with a conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, and/or performed, ratified or approved” of the security guard’s conduct in attacking Plaintiff. However, the Complaint contains no allegations that any officer, director or managing agent of Defendant Goodwill ratified the conduct of the security guards or that Goodwill was aware of their unfitness when they were hired.

Civil Code § 3294(a), allows recovery only if a plaintiff proves, by clear and convincing evidence, “that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” Additionally, it is a universally-recognized principle that ‘[t]he law does not favor punitive damages and they should be granted with the greatest caution.'”

(Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1379, 1392.) California courts require that specific facts be pled in support of punitive damage allegations; mere conclusions are not enough. (Hilliard v. A.H. Robbins (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 374, 391; Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6-7; Grieves v. Superior Court, supra, 157 Cal.App.3d at 166.)
To establish malice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant acted not just with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others, but also that the defendant willfully engaged in despicable conduct. (Civil Code section 3294(c)(1); College Hospital, Inc., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 713.) As the Supreme Court noted in College Hospital, the reference to “despicable” conduct is a substantive limitation on punitive damage awards because the term refers to circumstances which are base, vile or contemptible. (8 Cal.4th at p. 725.) Likewise, oppression requires “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard” of another’s rights. {Civil Code, section 3294(c)(2).) In other words, the bar for recovery of punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294 is quite

When, as in this case, a plaintiff seeks punitive damages against a defendant that is a corporation, additional pleading requirements apply. Simple vicarious liability is not sufficient. Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b) states:

“An employer shall not be liable for [punitive] damages…based upon acts of an employee of the employer, unless the employer had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. With respect to a corporate employer, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the

part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation.

Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b). Civil Code section 3294(b).”

In the absence of an opposition to the motion, the motion is granted, with leave to amend.

Plaintiff may file and serve an Amended Complaint on or before January 15, 2018. Response to be filed and served within 30 days of service of the amended complaint, 35 days if served by mail.