Tiffany Mcbryde vs. Riverside School, Inc.

“Irrelevant matter” under Code of Civil Procedure section 436 also includes an “immaterial allegation.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 431.10(c).) “A demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint” is a type of “immaterial allegation” subject to a motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc. § 431.10(b)(3).)

Punitive Damages

To plead punitive damages, the plaintiff must allege facts showing “that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” (Civ. Code § 3294(a).) “In addition to the requirement that the operative complaint set forth the elements as stated in section 3294, it must include specific factual allegations showing that defendant’s conduct was oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious to support a claim for punitive damages. [Citation.] Punitive damages may not be

34-2023-00336650-CU-NP-GDS: Tiffany Mcbryde vs. Riverside School, Inc. 05/30/2024 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint in Department 54

pleaded generally.” (Today’s IV, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1137, 1193.)

Malice is defined as “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.” (Civ. Code § 3294(c)(1).) Oppression is defined as “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.” (Civ. Code § 3294(c)(2).) Fraud is defined as “an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.” (Civ. Code § 3294(c)(3).)

Defendant contends:

“Plaintiffs’ FAC is utterly devoid of any specific facts and fails to meet the required pleading standard against BROOKFIELD. Plaintiffs must plead more to meet the legally heightened standard. The FAC does not allege any actions taken by BROOKFIELD that were with ‘fraud,’ ‘malice,’ or ‘oppression.’ Even if the Court were to assume all of Plaintiffs’ allegations were true, there simply are no allegations of material fact to support a claim for punitive damages. Accordingly, the prayer for exemplary and punitive damages should be stricken.”

(Defendant’s MPA, pp. 13:27-14:5.)

Plaintiffs’ opposition states that they “do not oppose Brookfield’s motion with regard to references to punitive damages, reserving their right to amend after discovery.” (Plaintiffs’ MPA, p. 1:14-15.)

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED as to the references to punitive damages in the FAC. The Court notes that Defendant’s notice of motion does not strictly comply with California Rules of Court rule 3.1322(a), as Defendant quotes more than it seemingly seeks (or is entitled) to have stricken. The Court thus clarifies that the motion is GRANTED as to the words “punitive damages” wherever they appear in the FAC, and as to Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages at paragraph six of their prayer for relief, found at FAC p. 17, lines 2-3.

Attorneys’ Fees

“Except as attorney’s fees are specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties; but parties to actions or proceedings are entitled to their costs, as hereinafter provided.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00336650-CU-NP-GDS: Tiffany Mcbryde vs. Riverside School, Inc. 05/30/2024 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint in Department 54

Here, under their eleventh cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress, Plaintiffs allege: “By the aforesaid acts and omissions of Defendants, and each of them, N.P. has been directly and legally caused to suffer actual damages including general damages, special damages, emotional distress, medical expenses and attorney’s fees, costs of suit and other pecuniary loss not presently ascertained.” (FAC, ¶ 103.) Plaintiffs have not identified a statute or an agreement that would permit them to recover attorney’s fees based on their negligent infliction of emotional distress claim.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs’ claim for attorney’s fees in relation to their cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress. To the extent Defendant’s notice of motion refers to other references to attorney’s fees, the motion is DENIED.

References to Case Law

Defendant contends, “Plaintiffs cite and rely on cases in support of its [sic] allegations in the FAC that are either not controlling or misapplied.” (Defendant’s MPA, p. 15:5-6.) Defendant provides no authority that this is a proper subject of a motion to strike. Defendant is essentially asking the Court to consider the validity of the cases cited in the FAC in relation to the allegations, which amounts to a consideration of extrinsic evidence, but references to extrinsic evidence are generally not permitted on motions to strike. (Circle Star Center Associates, L.P. v.

Liberate Technologies (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1203, 1211.) Moreover, irrelevant matter is defined as: “(1) An allegation that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense. (2) An allegation that is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense. (3) A demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint or cross-complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 431.10(b).) Defendant fails to show how any of these definitions apply to the references to case law in the FAC.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to strike is DENIED as to Plaintiffs’ references to case law in the FAC.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00336650-CU-NP-GDS: Tiffany Mcbryde vs. Riverside School, Inc. 05/30/2024 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint in Department 54

Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.