LICHTENBERG VS GOKTEPE

A “managing agent” includes those corporate employees who “exercise substantial independent authority and judgment in their corporate decision-making so that their decisions ultimately determine corporate policy.” (White v. Ultramar, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 563, 566-567.) This limitation ensures punitive damages are imposed only for conduct reflecting the corporate “state of mind” or the intentions of corporate leaders, not for the malicious acts of a low-level employee. (Cruz v. HomeBase (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 160, 167.)

Here, the FAC alleges Alves was a project superintendent with “discretionary policy authority over safety, equipment staging, traffic control, and regulato ry response” and that he “personally received/responded to NCRs.” (FAC ¶ 74.) It also alleges that Alves “made or ratified decisions to continue operations and staging” without implementing required corrections. (Id.) These allegations suggest that Alves had the authority to influence safety policies for this project and to decide the company’s regulatory responses. At the pleading stage, these are sufficient to create a factual issue as to whether he exercised the type of “substantial discretionary authority” under th e White standards. (White v. Ultramar, Inc., supra, 21 Cal.4th at 573.) The court should deny the motion to strike these allegations.

An employer may also be liable for punitive damages where its management ratifies the employee’s misconduct. (Ventura v. ABM Industries Inc. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 258, 272.) Ratification is the subsequent adoption of an unauthorized act. (Anderson v. Fay Improvement Company (1955) 134 Cal.App.2d 738, 748.) It is essentially a matter of assent. (Bate v. Marsteller (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 573, 582.) It requires that the principal act with full knowledge of all material facts. (Id.) “This knowledge is equally necessary whether the ratification be express or implied.” (Id.) “Whether an employer has ratified an employee’s conduct is generally a factual question.” (Ventura v. ABM Industries Inc, supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at 272.)

Here, the FAC alleges that “FISHER’s...corporate management and safety personnel were aware via NCRs, CEM-4601s, internal reports, and Caltrans communications that serious hazards were repeatedly identified over months/years yet failed to allocate adequate resources or shut down unsafe configurations, choosing to press forward in conscious disregard of risks.” (FAC ¶ 76, emphasis added.) These allegations plead both the knowledge of the conduct and the adoption of the conduct (by failing to take corrective actions and continuing operations). At the pleading stage, these allegations are sufficient.

Motion to Strike is DENIED in its entirety. Defendants to file an answer in 10 days. Case Management Conference to be held regarding future court dates.

9. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME CVPS2603288 LICHTENBERG VS GOKTEPE MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEY Tentative Ruling: No tentative ruling, per stipulation of the parties, the motion will be vacated for Plaintiffs to hire new counsel.