ELLIS vs PETALUMA CHICKEN, INC., et al.

25CV159703: ELLIS vs PETALUMA CHICKEN, INC., et al. 07/23/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Motion to Strike Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; filed by Lollicup Usa Inc. (Defendant) CRS# 951490482815 in Department 517

Tentative Ruling - 07/17/2026 Keith Fong

PROPOSED TENTATIVE

Defendant Lollicup USA, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s punitive damages allegations and prayer for punitive damages as to Lollicup USA, Inc. is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

BACKGROUND

The instant personal injury action arises from an incident in which Plaintiff Kimberly Ellis (“Plaintiff”) suffered burns after the lid containing hot soup that she had purchased from El Pollo Loco restaurant in Livermore, California, became detached and spilled on her.

On December 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Lollicup USA, Inc. (“Lollicup”), Petaluma Chicken, Inc., El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., and El Pollo Loco, Inc. Following a meet and confer, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on February 18, 2026, adding paragraphs 32 through 41 to bolster her request for punitive damages. The FAC asserts two causes of action, both against all Defendants, for negligence and product liability. Plaintiff seeks punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294. (FAC ¶¶ 56-59, 70-72.)

Lollicup moves to strike Plaintiff’s punitive damages allegations and prayer as to Lollicup, specifically paragraphs 32, 41, 70, and 71, the punitive damages request in paragraph 72, and the corresponding prayer for punitive damages. Lollicup contends that the FAC pleads no specific facts of malice, oppression, or fraud by Lollicup as a distinct entity, and does not tie any Lollicup officer, director, or managing agent to the challenged conduct, as Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (b) requires. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

On a motion to strike, the court may strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter, or any part of a pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) The grounds must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from matter subject to judicial notice; extrinsic evidence is disregarded. (Id., § 437, subd. (a); Garcia v. Sterling (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 17, 20-21.) The court reads the pleading as a whole, with its parts in context, and assumes the truth of all properly pleaded material facts, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.)

A plaintiff seeking punitive damages must plead ultimate facts, not conclusions, showing that the defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a); Clauson, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at p. 1255.) Conclusory allegations that a defendant acted with oppression, fraud, 25CV159703: ELLIS vs PETALUMA CHICKEN, INC., et al. 07/23/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Motion to Strike Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; filed by Lollicup Usa Inc. (Defendant) CRS# 951490482815 in Department 517 or malice, unsupported by specific facts, are insufficient. (Smith v.

Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1041-1042.) “Malice” includes despicable conduct carried on with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others, and the statutory reference to despicable conduct operates as a substantive limitation on punitive damages. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1); College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 725.)

Where the defendant is a corporation, punitive damages require that an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation committed, authorized, or ratified the oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious conduct. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (b).) A managing agent is an employee who exercises substantial independent authority and judgment in corporate decisionmaking such that his or her decisions ultimately determine corporate policy. (White v. Ultramar, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 563, 566-567.) A plaintiff need not identify the managing agent by name at the pleading stage (Monge v. Superior Court (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 503, 512), but must plead ultimate facts describing the role and authority of the person whose conduct or ratification is attributed to the corporation (Today’s IV, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1137, 1193).

Where the defect in a challenged pleading can reasonably be cured, leave to amend should be granted with liberality. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 970-971.)

DISCUSSION

Upon review of the pleadings and the motion papers, the Court is persuaded that Lollicup’s motion is well taken. The FAC’s punitive damages allegations are directed collectively at “Defendants,” with no delineation of their individual actions. (FAC ¶ 11, 19-22, 27-30, 36-40.) The FAC alleges no specific act, omission, or decision by Lollicup, as a distinct entity, that constitutes malice, oppression, or fraud. Because each defendant’s liability for punitive damages must be independently established, undifferentiated group allegations do not plead the specific facts required as to Lollicup. (Cruz v. HomeBase (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 160, 167; Smith, supra, 10 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1041-1042.)

In addition, the FAC fails to allege any facts establishing a nexus between Lollicup and the other defendants that are sufficient to justify punitive damages against Lollipop. The FAC alleges on information and belief only that Lollipop have “owned, operated, managed and controlled” the subject restaurant or to have “managed the other defendants” (FAC ¶ 8.) Yet, no facts are alleged that Lollicup had authority over, participated in, or knew of the restaurant’s operations, or that any conduct by Lollicup was despicable, that is, so vile, base, or contemptible that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people. (College Hospital, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 725.)

The FAC separately fails to satisfy the requirements of Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (b). While Plaintiff need not specifically name the managing agent (Monge, supra, 176 Cal.App.3d at p. 512), she must allege ultimate facts describing the role and authority of a Lollicup officer,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV159703: ELLIS vs PETALUMA CHICKEN, INC., et al. 07/23/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Motion to Strike Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; filed by Lollicup Usa Inc. (Defendant) CRS# 951490482815 in Department 517 director, or managing agent whose conduct or ratification is attributed to Lollicup. (White, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 566-567; Today’s IV, supra, 83 Cal.App.5th at p. 1193.) The functions the FAC describes, setting temperature and fill-volume policies and drive-thru procedures at El Pollo Loco restaurants, are restaurant-operator functions.

Nothing in the FAC connects them to any person exercising substantial independent authority to determine Lollicup’s corporate policy. Notably, Paragraph 71 avers that the challenged conduct “was therefore undertaken on behalf of El Pollo Loco” and that “El Pollo Loco” had knowledge of and ratified it, without any reference to Lollicup. (FAC ¶ 71.)

Plaintiff counters that a motion to strike a punitive damages claim is disfavored and that the FAC’s allegations must be accepted as true and construed liberally in her favor at the pleading stage. She argues that the pleaded facts support a reasonable inference of conscious disregard sufficient to plead malice, pointing to Defendants’ knowledge of well over 50 monthly complaints of lid failures and burn injuries, the service of soup at or near 190 degrees despite Defendants’ own Safety and Security Manual acknowledging that skin burns at 140 degrees, and Defendants’ failure to remedy the hazard. She further contends that, under section 3294, subdivision (b), she need not identify the responsible officers, directors, or managing agents by name before discovery, and that the collective allegations against “Defendants,” a defined term that includes Lollicup, apply equally to Lollicup.

Plaintiff’s argument is unavailing. Even accepting the FAC’s allegations as true and construing them liberally in Plaintiff’s favor, they do not differentiate Lollicup from the other defendants or connect any Lollicup officer, director, or managing agent to the challenged conduct. Plaintiff argues that the FAC alleges Lollicup was “directly involved in the design, specification, manufacture, distribution, and/or approval of the cup and lid system,” but no paragraph of the FAC so alleges, and Plaintiff’s opposition frames the point conditionally, contending that “to the extent” Lollicup supplied the cup and lid, its managing agents “would have” set the packaging specifications.

A punitive damages claim must rest on specific facts pleaded in the operative complaint, not on possibilities theoretically recited in an opposition brief. (Smith, supra, 10 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1041-1042.) Plaintiff’s reliance on Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890 is misplaced, as that case concerned an individual defendant’s own conduct and did not address section 3294, subdivision (b)’s separate requirement for corporate liability. That the FAC may allege negligence, or even conscious disregard, against the restaurant operators does not supply the heightened, entity-specific showing section 3294, subdivision (b) demands as to Lollicup.

Leave to amend is granted. Although Lollicup urges the Court to deny leave because Plaintiff already amended once after a meet and confer, the FAC was not amended in response to any prior court ruling on the sufficiency of these allegations as to Lollicup, and the policy favoring leave to amend applies with particular force at this early pleading stage.

Lollicup’s Motion to Strike the punitive damages allegations and prayer as to Lollicup is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV159703: ELLIS vs PETALUMA CHICKEN, INC., et al. 07/23/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Motion to Strike Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; filed by Lollicup Usa Inc. (Defendant) CRS# 951490482815 in Department 517

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Defendant Lollicup USA, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s punitive damages allegations and prayer for punitive damages as to Lollicup is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

If Plaintiff is able, in good faith, to allege additional facts curing the deficiencies identified above, she shall file and serve an amended complaint no later than August 3, 2026. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(g).)

In the event Plaintiff fails to timely file an amended complaint, Defendant may file a motion to dismiss the specific cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 581, subd. (f)(2).)

HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING?

THROUGH ECOURT

Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 p.m. (but by Noon if possible) at least one (1) court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select Search?

4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select Click to Contest this Ruling?

7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select Proceed?

BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4pm (but by Noon if possible) at least one (1) court day before the scheduled hearing.

BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.

ZOOM LOG-IN INFORMATION FOR DEPARTMENT 517 IS BELOW.

Join ZoomGov Meeting https://www.zoomgov.com/j/16181989812

Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV159703: ELLIS vs PETALUMA CHICKEN, INC., et al. 07/23/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Motion to Strike Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; filed by Lollicup Usa Inc. (Defendant) CRS# 951490482815 in Department 517 One tap mobile +16692545252,,16181989812# US (San Jose) 16692161590,,16181989812# US +(San Jose)

IF APPEARING BY ZOOM, VIDEO MUST BE ENABLED. THE COURT DOES NOT ALLOW APPEARANCES BY PHONE WITHOUT PRIOR LEAVE OF COURT.

Dial by your location +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose) +1 669 216 1590 US (San Jose) +1 551 285 1373 US +1 646 828 7666 US (New York) 833 568 8864 US Toll-free Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812 Find your local number: https://www.zoomgov.com/u/ad6x1ZH23d

Join by SIP 16181989812@sip.zoomgov.com

Join by H.323 161.199.138.10 (US West) 161.199.136.10 (US East) Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812