Duran vs. Starbucks Corporation

53 Duran vs. Motion to Strike Portions Of Complaint Starbucks Corporation Defendant Starbucks Corporation’s motion to strike is DENIED.

25-01495343 Defendant Starbucks Corporation (Starbucks) moves to strike the punitive-damages allegations and prayer in the First Amended Complaint (FAC) filed by Plaintiffs Cesar Duran (Cesar) and Monica Duran (Monica).

* Because Plaintiffs share the same last name, the court refers to them by their first names. No disrespect is intended.

A motion to strike is the proper vehicle to challenge a claim for punitive damages. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 435-436; Turman v. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.) “In order to state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a complaint must set forth the elements as stated in the general punitive damage statute, Civil Code section 3294. [Citation.] These statutory elements include allegations that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).)” (Turman v. Turning Point of Central California, Inc., supra, 191 Cal.App.4th at p. 63.)

Civil Code section 3294 establishes the requirements for imposing punitive damages on an employer or principal based on the acts of an employee or agent. In addition to showing that the employee acted within the scope of employment, the plaintiff must allege and prove that: (1) the employer had advance knowledge of the employee’s unfitness and employed the employee with conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others; (2) the employer authorized or ratified the employee’s oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious conduct; or (3) the employer was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (b); CACI Nos. 3943–3948; Samantha B. v. Aurora Vista Del Mar, LLC (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 85, 106; CRST, Inc. v. Superior Court (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1255, 1262.)

The FAC alleges sufficient facts to support Plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages. Read as a whole and accepted as true, the FAC supports a reasonable inference that Starbucks knew of recurring lid failures and serious burn risks but failed to redesign its lids, lower its serving temperature, or adequately warn customers. (FAC ¶¶ 15–20, 34, 50.) The alleged company-wide serving-temperature policy, repeated complaints, and notice of similar incidents also reasonably support an inference, at the pleading stage, that the challenged conduct reflected corporate policy established, maintained, or ratified by a Starbucks officer, director, or managing agent. (FAC ¶¶ 17–20, 35, 51.)

Accordingly, the motion to strike is DENIED. Defendant shall file and serve its answer within 15 days of service of notice of this ruling. Plaintiffs to give notice.