Preview
1 RACHEL VAN MULLEM, COUNTY COUNSEL
JENNIFER J. LEE, DEPUTY (SBN 249357)
2 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
105 E. Anapamu St., Suite 201
3 Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 568-2950 / FAX: (805) 568-2982
4 jenlee@countyofsb.org
5 Attorneys for Defendant,
JAMIE CATHLEEN GREEN
6
7 Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant To Gov. Code § 6103
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
11 ANACAPA DIVISION
12
NICOLE EMILY JORDAN, individually, and Case No: 23CV02702
13 as Successor Trustee and Beneficiary of THE
BORIMIR AND VIRGINIA JORDAN DEFENDANT JAMIE CATHLEEN
14 FMILY TRUST, and as Beneficiary of and GREEN’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO
Successor-In-Interest to the ESTATE OF STRIKE PUNITIVE AND
15 VIRGINIA JORDAN, DECEASED, EXEMPLARY DAMAGES;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
16 PLAINTIFF, AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF
JENNIFER J. LEE
17 v.
[Filed Concurrently with Demurrer]
18 ROGERS, SHEFFIELD & CAMPBELL, LLP,
a California Limited Liability Partnership; [Filed Concurrently with Request for
19 ANGELA M. JORDAN aka ANGELA Judicial Notice]
JORDAN HART aka ANGELA M. HART, an
20 individual; JENNIFER JORDAN aka Complaint Filed: June 22, 2023
JENNIFER HEMPFLING, an individual; Assigned Judge: Hon. Colleen K. Sterne
21 JAMIE CATHLEEN GREEN, an individual; Dept.: SB5
AMETHYST EVE SHEFFIELD and SHEILA
22 T PRICE, Co-Personal Representatives of the DATE: October 16, 2023
ESTATE OF HOMER G. SHEFFIELD, JR., TIME: 10:00 a.m.
23 DECEASED; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, DEPT: SB5
24 DEFENDANTS.
25
26
COUNTY COUNSEL
County of Santa Barbara 27 ///
105 East Anapamu Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 568-2950
28
1.
DEFENDANT GREEN’S MOTION TO STRIKE
1 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 16, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the
3 matter may be heard in Department SB5 of the above-entitled Court, located at 1100 Anacapa Street,
4 Santa Barbara, California, defendant Jamie Cathleen Green will move this Court for an order striking
5 the following language from plaintiff’s complaint:
6 • Page 73, line 5: “For exemplary and punitive damages according to proof.”
7 This motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 435 and 436, on grounds
8 that the above-referenced language constitutes items of non-recoverable damage and is not supported
9 by the facts.
10 This motion is based on this notice, the memorandum of points and authorities, the attached
11 declaration of Jennifer J. Lee, the pleadings, papers and records on file in this action, and upon such
12 further oral and/or documentary evidence as may properly be before the Court at the time of the
13 hearing of the motion.
14 DATED: September 14, 2023 RACHEL VAN MULLEM
COUNTY COUNSEL
15
16 ___________________________________
By: Jennifer J. Lee,
17 Deputy County Counsel
Attorneys for Defendant,
18 JAMIE CATHLEEN GREEN
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
COUNTY COUNSEL
County of Santa Barbara 27
105 East Anapamu Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 568-2950
28
2.
DEFENDANT GREEN’S MOTION TO STRIKE
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I.
3 INTRODUCTION
4 According to the complaint, moving defendant Jamie Cathleen Green allegedly failed
5 to (1) properly investigate claims of elder abuse and financial abuse, (2) relied upon
6 inaccurate information resulting in continuous harassment of plaintiff and her parents, and (3)
7 joined with co-defendants to frame plaintiff. Plaintiff attempts to maintain five causes of
8 action against moving defendant: (1) intentional interference with contractual relations (fifth
9 cause of action); (2) conspiracy to defraud (tenth cause of action); (3) dependent adult
10 emotional abuse and harassment (thirteenth cause of action); (4) elder emotional abuse and
11 harassment (fourteenth cause of action); and (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress
12 (fifteenth cause of action).
13 In addition to compensatory damages, plaintiff seeks the recovery of punitive and
14 exemplary damages against moving defendant for Conspiracy to Defraud (tenth cause of
15 action) based on allegations that defendant conspired with co-defendants to defraud plaintiff
16 and defendant held onto an “unfounded and viciously expressed grudge” against plaintiff,
17 which deprived plaintiff of her inheritance. (Complaint, p. 67, lines 4-5.) However, because
18 plaintiff fails to set forth sufficient facts on which to base an award of punitive damages and
19 punitive damages cannot be maintained against the government, the request is subject to this
20 motion to strike.
21 Accordingly, defendant moves to strike all references to the recovery of punitive and
22 exemplary damages on the ground that plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to infer malice as
23 contemplated by Civil Code section 3294. Further, Government Code section 818 prohibits the award
24 of punitive damages pursuant to Civil Code section 3294 against a government entity. In short,
25 plaintiff cannot successfully maintain her punitive and exemplary damages claim against moving
26 defendant, a public employee.
COUNTY COUNSEL
County of Santa Barbara 27 ///
105 East Anapamu Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 568-2950
28 ///
3.
DEFENDANT GREEN’S MOTION TO STRIKE
1 II.
2 THE FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT ARE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT AN
3 AWARD OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST MOVING DEFENDANT AND PUNITIVE
4 DAMAGES ARE NOT AVAILABLE AGAINST A GOVERNMENT ENTITY OR ITS
5 EMPLOYEES
6 Plaintiff’s request for punitive and exemplary damages against moving defendant arises from
7 the tenth cause of action for Conspiracy to Defraud. In support of this request plaintiff alleges that
8 defendant conspired with co-defendants to defraud plaintiff and defendant held onto an “unfounded
9 and viciously expressed grudge” against plaintiff, which deprived plaintiff of her inheritance.
10 In California, the basis upon which punitive and exemplary damages may be awarded is
11 governed by Civil Code section 3294(a), which allows recovery of punitive damages if and only if
12 plaintiff proves, by clear and convincing evidence that, "the defendant has been guilty of oppression,
13 fraud, or malice." Additionally, in judging the sufficiency of plaintiff’s allegations, it is important to
14 keep in mind “the universally recognized principle that ‘[t]he law does not favor punitive damages and
15 they should be granted with the greatest caution.’” (Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing
16 Commission (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1379, 1392, citation omitted.) In fact, “. . . the Legislature has made it
17 more difficult for plaintiffs to plead and prove [punitive damage] claims.” (College Hospital, Inc. v.
18 Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 712, emphasis added.) Plaintiff here has not pled sufficient facts
19 to support her punitive and exemplary damages claim.
20 California courts require that specific facts be pled in support of punitive damage allegations;
21 mere conclusions are not enough. (Hilliard v. A.H. Robbins (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 374, 391;
22 Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6-7; Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157
23 Cal.App.3d 159, 166.) Broad allegations that a defendant acted maliciously and willfully are not
24 enough; specific facts must be alleged. (Austin v. Regents of University of California (1979) 89
25 Cal.App.3d 354, 359, disapproved on other grounds by Ochoa v. Superior Court (1985) 39 Cal.3d
26 159; Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864.)
COUNTY COUNSEL
County of Santa Barbara 27 To establish malice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant acted not just with a
105 East Anapamu Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 568-2950
28 conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others, but also that the defendant willfully engaged in
4.
DEFENDANT GREEN’S MOTION TO STRIKE
1 despicable conduct. (Civil Code section 3294(c)(1); College Hospital, Inc., supra, 8 Cal.4th at 713.)
2 As the Supreme Court noted in College Hospital, the reference to “despicable” conduct is a
3 substantive limitation on punitive damage awards because the term refers to circumstances which are
4 base, vile or contemptible. (Id. at 725.) Likewise, oppression requires “despicable conduct that
5 subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard” of another’s rights. (Civil Code,
6 section 3294(c)(2).) Fraud requires an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a
7 material fact to deprive a person of property or legal rights or otherwise cause injury. (Civil Code,
8 section 3294(c)(3).) As such, it is clear the bar for recovery of punitive damages under Civil Code
9 section 3294 is quite high.
10 Even before Civil Code section 3294 was amended, a plaintiff was required to allege facts
11 establishing malice or oppression, not just legal conclusions that defendant’s acts were “wrongful” or
12 “willful” or “wanton.” (Cohen v. Groman Mortuary, Inc. (1964) 231 Cal.App.2d 1, 8-9, disapproved
13 on other grounds by Christensen v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 868.) “Punitive or exemplary
14 damages are remedies available to a party who can plead and prove the facts and circumstances set
15 forth in Civil Code section 3294, the cases interpreting this code section, or by other statutory
16 authority.” (Hilliard v. A.H. Robbins, supra 148 Cal.App.3d at 391, emphasis added, footnotes
17 omitted.) Even under the older, lower standard, plaintiff’s claims that defendant conspired to defraud
18 plaintiff and held onto an “unfounded and viciously expressed grudge” against plaintiff, which
19 deprived plaintiff of her inheritance, are not enough to plead punitive damages.
20 Here, plaintiff’s complaint contains only conclusions that moving defendant acted with
21 conscious disregard. The facts of the complaint do not and cannot support allegations of despicable
22 conduct. Accordingly, all reference to the recovery of punitive and exemplary damages must be
23 stricken. To determine otherwise would be tantamount to an improper finding based upon speculation.
24 Furthermore, pursuant to Government Code section 818, a public entity is not liable for
25 damages awarded under Civil Code section 3294 or other damages imposed primarily to punish the
26 defendant. Although the County is not named as a defendant in the complaint, “the employing public
COUNTY COUNSEL
County of Santa Barbara 27 entity is generally liable for damage or injury caused. (Gov. Code, § 815.2.) Although not named as a
105 East Anapamu Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 568-2950
28 party litigant in the suit, the employer is generally required to provide for the employee’s defense to
5.
DEFENDANT GREEN’S MOTION TO STRIKE
1 the action (Gov. Code, § 995); and is liable to pay any judgment had without a right to indemnification
2 from the employee. (Gov. Code, § 825 et seq.)” (Rogers v. Centrone (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 361, 365.)
3 Here, not only is plaintiff unable to set forth facts to support a claim for punitive damages,
4 plaintiff is prohibited from seeking punitive damages against moving defendant, a public employee.
5 III.
6 CONCLUSION
7 For all the foregoing reasons, defendant respectfully requests that this Court strike from the
8 complaint the reference to punitive and exemplary damages as set forth in the notice of this motion.
9 DATED: September 14, 2023 RACHEL VAN MULLEM
COUNTY COUNSEL
10
11 ___________________________________
By: Jennifer J. Lee,
12 Deputy County Counsel
Attorneys for Defendant,
13 JAMIE CATHLEEN GREEN
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
COUNTY COUNSEL
County of Santa Barbara 27
105 East Anapamu Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 568-2950
28
6.
DEFENDANT GREEN’S MOTION TO STRIKE
1 DECLARATION OF JENNIFER J. LEE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE
2 I, JENNIFER J. LEE, declare as follows:
3 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of California, and a member of
4 the Office of County Counsel of the County of Santa Barbara, attorneys for defendant, Jamie
5 Cathleen Green. The following facts are within my personal knowledge, and if called as a
6 witness, I could and would competently testify thereto.
7 2. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5, I must meet and confer in
8 person or by telephone with plaintiff regarding moving defendant’s motion to strike prior to
9 filing it. On July 27, 2023, a good faith attempt to meet and confer was made. I called
10 plaintiff’s counsel, Tamineh Roshanian, Esq. at (818) 330-5162. I explained to her the
11 grounds for my motion to strike the punitive and exemplary damages against moving
12 defendant. Ms. Roshanian needed additional time to review the issues raised and a stipulation
13 to extend the deadline for moving defendant to file a responsive pleading was filed with the
14 Court. The parties could not reach an agreement and the instant motion was filed.
15 3. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
16 foregoing is true and correct.
17 Executed this 14th day of September, 2023, at Santa Barbara, CA.
18
____________________________________
19
JENNIFER J. LEE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
COUNTY COUNSEL
County of Santa Barbara 27
105 East Anapamu Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 568-2950
28
7.
DEFENDANT GREEN’S MOTION TO STRIKE
PROOF OF SERVICE
1 (C.C.P. §§ 1013(a), 2015.5)
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
3 I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is 105 East Anapamu Street,
4 Santa Barbara, California.
5 On September 14, 2023, I served a true copy of the within DEFENDANT JAMIE
CATHLEEN GREEN’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE AND
6 EXEMPLARY DAMAGES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES;
DECLARATION OF JENNIFER J. LEE on the Interested Parties in this action:
7
by mail to the person(s) indicted below. I am familiar with the practice of the Office of Santa
8
Barbara County Counsel for the collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the
United States Postal Service. In accordance with the ordinary course of business, the above-
9
mentioned document would have been deposited with the United States Postal Service, after having
10 been deposited and processed for postage with the County of Santa Barbara Central Mail Room.
11 SEE SERVICE LIST
12
13
via Federal Express delivery services company to the person(s) indicated below.
14
by e-mail or electronic transmission. I caused the document(s) to be sent from e-mail
15
address mheuvel@countyofsb.org, to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed in the below. I
16 did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or
other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
17 Tamineh Roshanian, Attorneys for Plaintiff: tami@roshanianpayman.com
Kenny C. Brooks and Michael McCarthy, Attorneys for Defendants, Rogers Sheffield
18 & Campbell, LLP and Sheila Price (as Representative of the estate of Homer
Sheffield): kbrooks@nemecek-cole.com and mstoecker@nemecek-cole.com
19
20 (State) I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the above is true and correct.
21 (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the
Bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made.
22
Executed on September 14, 2023 at Santa Barbara, California.
23
24 _______________________
Marleen van den Heuvel
25
26
COUNTY COUNSEL
County of Santa Barbara 27
105 East Anapamu Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 568-2950
28
8.
PROOF OF SERVICE
1 SERVICE LIST
2
Tamineh Roshanian
3 Roshanian Payman, PC
30721 Russell Ranch Road, Suite 140
4 Westlake Village, CA 91362-7383
(818) 330-5162
5
tami@roshanianpayman.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
6
7 Kenny C. Brooks
Michael McCarthy
8 NEMECEK & COLE
A Professional Corporation
9 16255 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300
Encino, California 91436-2300
10 (818) 788-9500
kbrooks@nemecek-cole.com
11 mstoecker@nemecek-cole.com
Attorneys for Defendants,
12 Rogers Sheffield & Campbell, LLP and
Sheila Price (as Representative of the estate of
13 Homer Sheffield)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
COUNTY COUNSEL
County of Santa Barbara 27
105 East Anapamu Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 568-2950
28
9.
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
1 RACHEL VAN MULLEM, COUNTY COUNSEL JENNIFER J. LEE, DEPUTY (SBN 249357) 2 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 105 E. Anapamu St., Suite 201 3 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 568-2950 / FAX: (805) 568-2982 4 jenlee@countyofsb.org 5 Attorneys for Defendant, JAMIE CATHLEEN GREEN 6 7 Exempt From Filing Fees Pursuant To Gov. Code § 6103 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 11 ANACAPA DIVISION 12 NICOLE EMILY JORDAN, individually, and Case No: 23CV02702 13 as Successor Trustee and Beneficiary of THE BORIMIR AND VIRGINIA JORDAN DEFENDANT JAMIE CATHLEEN 14 FMILY TRUST, and as Beneficiary of and GREEN’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO Successor-In-Interest to the ESTATE OF STRIKE PUNITIVE AND 15 VIRGINIA JORDAN, DECEASED, EXEMPLARY DAMAGES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 16 PLAINTIFF, AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF JENNIFER J. LEE 17 v. [Filed Concurrently with Demurrer] 18 ROGERS, SHEFFIELD & CAMPBELL, LLP, a California Limited Liability Partnership; [Filed Concurrently with Request for 19 ANGELA M. JORDAN aka ANGELA Judicial Notice] JORDAN HART aka ANGELA M. HART, an 20 individual; JENNIFER JORDAN aka Complaint Filed: June 22, 2023 JENNIFER HEMPFLING, an individual; Assigned Judge: Hon. Colleen K. Sterne 21 JAMIE CATHLEEN GREEN, an individual; Dept.: SB5 AMETHYST EVE SHEFFIELD and SHEILA 22 T PRICE, Co-Personal Representatives of the DATE: October 16, 2023 ESTATE OF HOMER G. SHEFFIELD, JR., TIME: 10:00 a.m. 23 DECEASED; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, DEPT: SB5 24 DEFENDANTS. 25 26 COUNTY COUNSEL County of Santa Barbara 27 /// 105 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 568-2950 28 1. DEFENDANT GREEN’S MOTION TO STRIKE 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 16, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the 3 matter may be heard in Department SB5 of the above-entitled Court, located at 1100 Anacapa Street, 4 Santa Barbara, California, defendant Jamie Cathleen Green will move this Court for an order striking 5 the following language from plaintiff’s complaint: 6 • Page 73, line 5: “For exemplary and punitive damages according to proof.” 7 This motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 435 and 436, on grounds 8 that the above-referenced language constitutes items of non-recoverable damage and is not supported 9 by the facts. 10 This motion is based on this notice, the memorandum of points and authorities, the attached 11 declaration of Jennifer J. Lee, the pleadings, papers and records on file in this action, and upon such 12 further oral and/or documentary evidence as may properly be before the Court at the time of the 13 hearing of the motion. 14 DATED: September 14, 2023 RACHEL VAN MULLEM COUNTY COUNSEL 15 16 ___________________________________ By: Jennifer J. Lee, 17 Deputy County Counsel Attorneys for Defendant, 18 JAMIE CATHLEEN GREEN 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 COUNTY COUNSEL County of Santa Barbara 27 105 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 568-2950 28 2. DEFENDANT GREEN’S MOTION TO STRIKE 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. 3 INTRODUCTION 4 According to the complaint, moving defendant Jamie Cathleen Green allegedly failed 5 to (1) properly investigate claims of elder abuse and financial abuse, (2) relied upon 6 inaccurate information resulting in continuous harassment of plaintiff and her parents, and (3) 7 joined with co-defendants to frame plaintiff. Plaintiff attempts to maintain five causes of 8 action against moving defendant: (1) intentional interference with contractual relations (fifth 9 cause of action); (2) conspiracy to defraud (tenth cause of action); (3) dependent adult 10 emotional abuse and harassment (thirteenth cause of action); (4) elder emotional abuse and 11 harassment (fourteenth cause of action); and (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress 12 (fifteenth cause of action). 13 In addition to compensatory damages, plaintiff seeks the recovery of punitive and 14 exemplary damages against moving defendant for Conspiracy to Defraud (tenth cause of 15 action) based on allegations that defendant conspired with co-defendants to defraud plaintiff 16 and defendant held onto an “unfounded and viciously expressed grudge” against plaintiff, 17 which deprived plaintiff of her inheritance. (Complaint, p. 67, lines 4-5.) However, because 18 plaintiff fails to set forth sufficient facts on which to base an award of punitive damages and 19 punitive damages cannot be maintained against the government, the request is subject to this 20 motion to strike. 21 Accordingly, defendant moves to strike all references to the recovery of punitive and 22 exemplary damages on the ground that plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to infer malice as 23 contemplated by Civil Code section 3294. Further, Government Code section 818 prohibits the award 24 of punitive damages pursuant to Civil Code section 3294 against a government entity. In short, 25 plaintiff cannot successfully maintain her punitive and exemplary damages claim against moving 26 defendant, a public employee. COUNTY COUNSEL County of Santa Barbara 27 /// 105 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 568-2950 28 /// 3. DEFENDANT GREEN’S MOTION TO STRIKE 1 II. 2 THE FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT ARE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT AN 3 AWARD OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST MOVING DEFENDANT AND PUNITIVE 4 DAMAGES ARE NOT AVAILABLE AGAINST A GOVERNMENT ENTITY OR ITS 5 EMPLOYEES 6 Plaintiff’s request for punitive and exemplary damages against moving defendant arises from 7 the tenth cause of action for Conspiracy to Defraud. In support of this request plaintiff alleges that 8 defendant conspired with co-defendants to defraud plaintiff and defendant held onto an “unfounded 9 and viciously expressed grudge” against plaintiff, which deprived plaintiff of her inheritance. 10 In California, the basis upon which punitive and exemplary damages may be awarded is 11 governed by Civil Code section 3294(a), which allows recovery of punitive damages if and only if 12 plaintiff proves, by clear and convincing evidence that, "the defendant has been guilty of oppression, 13 fraud, or malice." Additionally, in judging the sufficiency of plaintiff’s allegations, it is important to 14 keep in mind “the universally recognized principle that ‘[t]he law does not favor punitive damages and 15 they should be granted with the greatest caution.’” (Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing 16 Commission (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1379, 1392, citation omitted.) In fact, “. . . the Legislature has made it 17 more difficult for plaintiffs to plead and prove [punitive damage] claims.” (College Hospital, Inc. v. 18 Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 712, emphasis added.) Plaintiff here has not pled sufficient facts 19 to support her punitive and exemplary damages claim. 20 California courts require that specific facts be pled in support of punitive damage allegations; 21 mere conclusions are not enough. (Hilliard v. A.H. Robbins (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 374, 391; 22 Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6-7; Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 23 Cal.App.3d 159, 166.) Broad allegations that a defendant acted maliciously and willfully are not 24 enough; specific facts must be alleged. (Austin v. Regents of University of California (1979) 89 25 Cal.App.3d 354, 359, disapproved on other grounds by Ochoa v. Superior Court (1985) 39 Cal.3d 26 159; Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864.) COUNTY COUNSEL County of Santa Barbara 27 To establish malice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant acted not just with a 105 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 568-2950 28 conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others, but also that the defendant willfully engaged in 4. DEFENDANT GREEN’S MOTION TO STRIKE 1 despicable conduct. (Civil Code section 3294(c)(1); College Hospital, Inc., supra, 8 Cal.4th at 713.) 2 As the Supreme Court noted in College Hospital, the reference to “despicable” conduct is a 3 substantive limitation on punitive damage awards because the term refers to circumstances which are 4 base, vile or contemptible. (Id. at 725.) Likewise, oppression requires “despicable conduct that 5 subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard” of another’s rights. (Civil Code, 6 section 3294(c)(2).) Fraud requires an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a 7 material fact to deprive a person of property or legal rights or otherwise cause injury. (Civil Code, 8 section 3294(c)(3).) As such, it is clear the bar for recovery of punitive damages under Civil Code 9 section 3294 is quite high. 10 Even before Civil Code section 3294 was amended, a plaintiff was required to allege facts 11 establishing malice or oppression, not just legal conclusions that defendant’s acts were “wrongful” or 12 “willful” or “wanton.” (Cohen v. Groman Mortuary, Inc. (1964) 231 Cal.App.2d 1, 8-9, disapproved 13 on other grounds by Christensen v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 868.) “Punitive or exemplary 14 damages are remedies available to a party who can plead and prove the facts and circumstances set 15 forth in Civil Code section 3294, the cases interpreting this code section, or by other statutory 16 authority.” (Hilliard v. A.H. Robbins, supra 148 Cal.App.3d at 391, emphasis added, footnotes 17 omitted.) Even under the older, lower standard, plaintiff’s claims that defendant conspired to defraud 18 plaintiff and held onto an “unfounded and viciously expressed grudge” against plaintiff, which 19 deprived plaintiff of her inheritance, are not enough to plead punitive damages. 20 Here, plaintiff’s complaint contains only conclusions that moving defendant acted with 21 conscious disregard. The facts of the complaint do not and cannot support allegations of despicable 22 conduct. Accordingly, all reference to the recovery of punitive and exemplary damages must be 23 stricken. To determine otherwise would be tantamount to an improper finding based upon speculation. 24 Furthermore, pursuant to Government Code section 818, a public entity is not liable for 25 damages awarded under Civil Code section 3294 or other damages imposed primarily to punish the 26 defendant. Although the County is not named as a defendant in the complaint, “the employing public COUNTY COUNSEL County of Santa Barbara 27 entity is generally liable for damage or injury caused. (Gov. Code, § 815.2.) Although not named as a 105 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 568-2950 28 party litigant in the suit, the employer is generally required to provide for the employee’s defense to 5. DEFENDANT GREEN’S MOTION TO STRIKE 1 the action (Gov. Code, § 995); and is liable to pay any judgment had without a right to indemnification 2 from the employee. (Gov. Code, § 825 et seq.)” (Rogers v. Centrone (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 361, 365.) 3 Here, not only is plaintiff unable to set forth facts to support a claim for punitive damages, 4 plaintiff is prohibited from seeking punitive damages against moving defendant, a public employee. 5 III. 6 CONCLUSION 7 For all the foregoing reasons, defendant respectfully requests that this Court strike from the 8 complaint the reference to punitive and exemplary damages as set forth in the notice of this motion. 9 DATED: September 14, 2023 RACHEL VAN MULLEM COUNTY COUNSEL 10 11 ___________________________________ By: Jennifer J. Lee, 12 Deputy County Counsel Attorneys for Defendant, 13 JAMIE CATHLEEN GREEN 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 COUNTY COUNSEL County of Santa Barbara 27 105 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 568-2950 28 6. DEFENDANT GREEN’S MOTION TO STRIKE 1 DECLARATION OF JENNIFER J. LEE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE 2 I, JENNIFER J. LEE, declare as follows: 3 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of California, and a member of 4 the Office of County Counsel of the County of Santa Barbara, attorneys for defendant, Jamie 5 Cathleen Green. The following facts are within my personal knowledge, and if called as a 6 witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. 7 2. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5, I must meet and confer in 8 person or by telephone with plaintiff regarding moving defendant’s motion to strike prior to 9 filing it. On July 27, 2023, a good faith attempt to meet and confer was made. I called 10 plaintiff’s counsel, Tamineh Roshanian, Esq. at (818) 330-5162. I explained to her the 11 grounds for my motion to strike the punitive and exemplary damages against moving 12 defendant. Ms. Roshanian needed additional time to review the issues raised and a stipulation 13 to extend the deadline for moving defendant to file a responsive pleading was filed with the 14 Court. The parties could not reach an agreement and the instant motion was filed. 15 3. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 16 foregoing is true and correct. 17 Executed this 14th day of September, 2023, at Santa Barbara, CA. 18 ____________________________________ 19 JENNIFER J. LEE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 COUNTY COUNSEL County of Santa Barbara 27 105 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 568-2950 28 7. DEFENDANT GREEN’S MOTION TO STRIKE PROOF OF SERVICE 1 (C.C.P. §§ 1013(a), 2015.5) 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 3 I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is 105 East Anapamu Street, 4 Santa Barbara, California. 5 On September 14, 2023, I served a true copy of the within DEFENDANT JAMIE CATHLEEN GREEN’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE AND 6 EXEMPLARY DAMAGES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF JENNIFER J. LEE on the Interested Parties in this action: 7 by mail to the person(s) indicted below. I am familiar with the practice of the Office of Santa 8 Barbara County Counsel for the collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. In accordance with the ordinary course of business, the above- 9 mentioned document would have been deposited with the United States Postal Service, after having 10 been deposited and processed for postage with the County of Santa Barbara Central Mail Room. 11 SEE SERVICE LIST 12 13 via Federal Express delivery services company to the person(s) indicated below. 14 by e-mail or electronic transmission. I caused the document(s) to be sent from e-mail 15 address mheuvel@countyofsb.org, to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed in the below. I 16 did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 17 Tamineh Roshanian, Attorneys for Plaintiff: tami@roshanianpayman.com Kenny C. Brooks and Michael McCarthy, Attorneys for Defendants, Rogers Sheffield 18 & Campbell, LLP and Sheila Price (as Representative of the estate of Homer Sheffield): kbrooks@nemecek-cole.com and mstoecker@nemecek-cole.com 19 20 (State) I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the above is true and correct. 21 (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the Bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made. 22 Executed on September 14, 2023 at Santa Barbara, California. 23 24 _______________________ Marleen van den Heuvel 25 26 COUNTY COUNSEL County of Santa Barbara 27 105 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 568-2950 28 8. PROOF OF SERVICE 1 SERVICE LIST 2 Tamineh Roshanian 3 Roshanian Payman, PC 30721 Russell Ranch Road, Suite 140 4 Westlake Village, CA 91362-7383 (818) 330-5162 5 tami@roshanianpayman.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 6 7 Kenny C. Brooks Michael McCarthy 8 NEMECEK & COLE A Professional Corporation 9 16255 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300 Encino, California 91436-2300 10 (818) 788-9500 kbrooks@nemecek-cole.com 11 mstoecker@nemecek-cole.com Attorneys for Defendants, 12 Rogers Sheffield & Campbell, LLP and Sheila Price (as Representative of the estate of 13 Homer Sheffield) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 COUNTY COUNSEL County of Santa Barbara 27 105 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 568-2950 28 9. PROOF OF SERVICE