Case Number: EC061954 Hearing Date: June 06, 2014 Dept: NCD

Defendant’s Motion to Strike Punitive Damages

TENTATIVE:
[No Opposition].
Motion to strike is DENIED.

Ten days to answer.

RELIEF REQUESTED:
Strike allegations and prayer for punitive damages

SUMMARY OF FACTS:
Plaintiff Leyla Urbina brings this action against plaintiff’s former employer, defendant Villa Scalabrini, alleging that after five years of dedicated service to defendant as a certified nurse assistant, during which plaintiff received numerous raises, compliments and positive performance evaluations, plaintiff was terminated because defendant wanted to use younger workers in the department in which plaintiff worked, and because of plaintiff’s physical disabilities.

ANALYSIS:
Defendant argues that plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege facts necessary to support a claim for punitive damages, as insufficient facts are alleged.

Civil Code § 3294 authorizes recovery of punitive damages on the basis of findings that “the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice.” “Oppression” is defined to mean “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.” “Malice” is defined to mean “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.”

Here, the complaint states in some detail that defendant deliberately discriminated against plaintiff based on plaintiff’s age and physical disability, which can easily be construed as conduct undertaken in conscious disregard of plaintiff’s constitutional and statutory rights.

Defendant also argues that the complaint fails to sufficiently allege involvement in the alleged conduct giving rise to punitive damages on the part of defendant as a corporation. Civil Code sec. 3294(b) requires that a plaintiff seeking punitive damages against a corporation must show such wrongful conduct by managing personnel of the corporation:
“An employer shall not be liable for [exemplary]…damages based upon acts of an employee of the employer, unless the employer…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, or ratification of an act of oppression, fraud or malice must be on the part of an officer, director or managing agent of the corporation. “
Civ. Code sec. 3294(b).

Here, it is alleged, albeit generally, that the actions of discrimination “were carried out by defendants, and each of them, as well as by their officers, directors, and/or managing agents acting on behalf of, with the knowledge of and with the authority of defendants, and each of them…” [Para. 11]. This is sufficient to survive demurrer as the facts alleged, in effect that defendant terminated plaintiff, and refused to provide a reasonable accommodation, suggest conduct which would ordinarily be taken or ratified by the management of the employer. The motion to strike is therefore denied, without prejudice, subject to renewal if and as appropriate pursuant to a pretrial or a trial motion.