Case Name: Suhas Kulkarni, et al. v. The Sobrato Organization, LLC, et al.
Case No.: 17-CV-314348

Currently before the Court is the motion by defendants BKB Construction, LP and BKB Construction Management, Inc. (collectively, “BKB Construction Defendants”) to strike the request for punitive damages from the complaint of plaintiffs Suhas Kulkarni and Chaitali Prabhune (collectively, “Plaintiffs”).

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a wrongful death action brought by the parents of decedent Krish Kulkarni against defendants The Sobrato Organization, LLC, SI XVII, LLC, BKB Construction Defendants, and Woodmont (collectively, “Defendants”). (Complaint, ¶ 12.) Decedent, who was 20-months old, lived with his parents and seven-year old sister in a third floor apartment unit at the Water’s Edge Apartment building located at 1200 E. Hillsdale Blvd., Foster City, California. (Id. at ¶ GN-1(5).) On August 11, 2016, decedent fell through an open third-story window in the hallway just outside of Plaintiffs’ apartment. (Id. at ¶¶ GN-1(5), Prem.L-1, Ex-2(3)-(4), and p. 8:10-17.) The window was large and located only a few inches from the floor. (Id. at ¶ Ex-2(3)-(4).) The screen on the window was unable to support decedent’s weight. (Id. at ¶ Ex-2(4).) Decedent initially survived the fall, but ultimately succumbed to his severe injuries. (Id. at ¶¶ GN-1(5) and Ex-2(4).)
The subject window was allegedly unsecured and unreasonably dangerous. (Complaint, ¶ GN-1(5).) Defendants were the alleged owners, operators, and managers of the Water’s Edge Apartment building and/or installed defective and unsafe windows. (Id. at ¶¶ GN-1(6)-(7) and Prem. L-2.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants “negligently owned, operated, leased, maintained, designed, supervised, controlled, inspected, constructed, replaced, and managed the apartment complex” and “the windows of the individual units at [the apartment complex] in such a manner so as to cause the windows and the apartments to be unreasonably dangerous to tenants.” (Id. at ¶ GN-1(8).) “Such negligent conduct included … [D]efendants’ placement of large windows only inches from the apartment floor in common areas and units, failure to install safety latches to windows that could not be manipulated or overridden, failure to properly secure screens to windows, failure to install windows with fixed bottoms to guard against inadvertent falls, and failure to install adequate safety features on the windows so as to prevent persons from falling through them.” (Ibid.)

Defendants allegedly “knew about the dangerous windows before the accident, and knew especially and specifically about the dangers posed to babies and children by the large windows placed inches from the floor in common areas where anyone could open the window without notifying other tenants.” (Complaint, ¶ Ex-2(5).) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants “owned, managed and installed windows in thousands of apartment units and were specifically aware of the dangers posed by low sill windows especially those in common areas where the windows could be opened by anyone
walking through the hallways and without knowledge of tenants who lived in close proximity to the common windows with low sills.” (Ibid.)
“However, as a cost saving decision, Defendants made no efforts to improve the safety of the windows or mitigate the risk to babies and children.” (Complaint, ¶ Ex-2(5)-(6).) In 2014, Defendants allegedly made significant renovations to the apartment building, but failed to repair or mitigate the danger posed by the unsafe windows. (Id. at ¶¶ GN-1(8)-(9) and Ex-2(6).) Additionally, Defendants did not warn tenants of the dangers posed by the windows prior to the incident. (Id. at ¶ Ex-2(5).)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants, alleging causes of action for: (1) general negligence; (2) premises liability; and (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress.

On November 3, 2017, BKB Construction Defendants filed the instant motion to strike. Plaintiffs filed papers in opposition to the motion on January 30, 2018. On February 5, 2018, BKB Construction Defendants filed a reply.

Discussion

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 436, BKB Construction Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages from the complaint.

I. 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 (Turman) citing Clauson v. Super. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.)

II. Punitive Damages

Punitive damages are recoverable when “it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a); see also Tomaselli v. Transamerica Insurance Co. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1287, quoting Flyer’s Body Shop Profit Sharing Plan v. Ticor Title Insurance Co. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1149, 1154 [“ ‘Punitive damages are appropriate if defendant’s acts are reprehensible, fraudulent or in blatant violation of public policy.’ ”].) The ultimate facts underlying a claim for punitive damages must be specifically alleged. (Clauson v. Super. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.)

BKB Construction Defendants argue that the Court should strike Plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages. They highlight the allegations in the complaint that “Defendants were in the business of owning, operating, renting, and managing residential apartments” and “Defendants … owned, managed and installed windows in thousands of apartment units and were specifically aware of the dangers posed by the low sill windows.” (Mem. Ps. & As., p. 1:25-28.) BKB Construction Defendants assert that the request for punitive damages fails because the complaint does not “distinguish the conduct of one party from another but simply groups all of the defendants into the same category.” (Id., at pp. 1:28 -2:1.) They contend that “lumping all of the defendants does not meet the ‘reasonable precision’ requirement for pleading punitive damages,” citing Doheny Park Terrace Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exchange (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1099 (Doheny). BKB Construction Defendants state that they are “construction companies that don’t fit the description [of Defendants] contained in the [c]omplaint.” (Reply, p. 2:22-23.) They contend that the complaint, “taken as a whole[,] does not appraise [sic] each defendant on [sic] the bases for which Plaintiffs are seeking relief.” (Mem. Ps. & As., p. 5:11-12.)
In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that they have alleged sufficient facts in support of th
eir claim for punitive damages. Plaintiffs do not directly address BKB Construction Defendants’ contention that allegations in the complaint referring to Defendants collectively are inadequate.

BKB Construction Defendants’ argument is not well-taken. As an initial matter, Dohney does not stand for the proposition that Plaintiffs cannot refer to Defendants collectively when pleading their request for punitive damages. Doheny does not involve a request for punitive damages. Dohney simply reiterates the well-known principles regarding the standard for pleading causes of action. (Doheny, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 1098-99 [“ ‘In order to plead a cause of action, the complaint must contain a “statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.” [Citation.] While it is true that pleading conclusions of law does not fulfill this requirement, it has long been recognized that “[t]he distinction between conclusions of law and ultimate facts is not at all clear and involves at most a matter of degree. [Citations.] For example, the courts have permitted allegations which obviously included conclusions of law and have termed them ‘ultimate facts’ or ‘conc
lusions of fact.’ ” [Citations.] What is important is that the complaint as a whole contain sufficient facts to apprise the defendant of the basis upon which the plaintiff is seeking relief. [Citations.]’ ”], italics in original.)

Here, Plaintiffs allege sufficient ultimate facts to support their request for punitive damages. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are the alleged owners, operators, and managers of the Water’s Edge Apartment building and/or installed defective and unsafe windows. (Complaint, ¶¶ GN-1(6)-(7) and Prem. L-2.) They further allege that Defendants “negligently owned, operated, leased, maintained, designed, supervised, controlled, inspected, constructed, replaced, and managed the apartment complex” and “the windows of the individual units at [the apartment complex] in such a manner so as to cause the windows and the apartments to be unreasonably dangerous to tenants.” (Id., at ¶

GN-1(8), italics added.) “Such negligent conduct included … [D]efendants’ placement of large windows only inches from the apartment floor in common areas and units, failure to install safety latches to windows that could not be manipulated or overridden, failure to properly secure screens to windows, failure to install windows with fixed bottoms to guard against inadvertent falls, and failure to install adequate safety features on the windows so as to prevent persons from falling through them.” (Ibid.) Plaintiffs also allege that all Defendants, including BKB Construction Defendants, were aware of the defective condition of the window; they were aware that the window posed a danger to babies and children; and they made no effort to repair or replace the window for financial reasons. (Id., at ¶¶ GN-1(8)-(9) and Ex-2(5)-(6).) These allegations adequately apprise BKB Construction Defendants of their alleged wrongful conduct. The reference to the Defendants collectively does not make the complaint unclear as all Defendants are alleged to have engaged in all of the wrongful conduct alleged in the complaint. Moreover, the allegations must be accepted as true for purposes of the motion to strike. (See Turman, supra, 191 Cal.App.4th at p. 63.)

Accordingly, BKB Construction Defendants’ motion to strike the request for punitive damages is DENIED.