Preview
1 MICHAEL J. PIETRYKOWSKI (SBN: 118677)
mpietrykowski@grsm.com
2 CHRISTINE M. WHEATLEY (SBN: 203397)
cwheatley@grsm.com
3 NICHOLAS P. MORAN (SBN: 329908)
nmoran@grsm.com
4 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 1700
5 Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 463-8600
6 Facsimile: (510) 984-1721
7 Attorneys for Defendant
Maggiora Bros. Drilling, Inc. erroneously sued as Maggiora Drilling
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF MONTEREY
11 KATHLEEN HARRIS, MIKEL HARRIS ) CASE NO. 21CV002053
and KYLE BINGHAM, )
12 ) DEFENDANT MAGGIORA BROS.
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
Plaintiffs, ) DRILLING, INC.’S MEMORANDUM
13 vs. ) IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
1111 Broadway, Suite 1700
) STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ PRAYER FOR
Oakland, CA 94607
14 ESTATE OF IKEY LITTLE, et al. PUNITIVE DAMAGES
)
15 Defendants ) Accompanying Papers:
)
16 ) 1. Notice of Motion to Strike
) 2. Request for Judicial Notice
17 ) 3. Declaration of Nicholas P. Moran
) 4. [Proposed] Order
18 )
) Date: June 7, 2024
19 ) Time: 8:30 a.m.
) Dept: 15
20 ) Judge: Thomas W. Wills
)
21 ) Complaint Filed: June 28 , 2021
)
22 )
)
23 )
24
25
26
27
28
1
DEFENDANT MAGGIORA BROS. DRILLING, INC.’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES
HARRIS- MAGGIORA MPA ISO MTS PUNITIVE DAMAGES(86852727.1) - 3/15/2024 11:24 AM
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Page
3
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 4
4
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................ 4
5
A. Allegations regarding exposures generally. ........................................................... 4
6
B. Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims are generic and fail to meet the
7 requisite legal standard. ......................................................................................... 5
8 C. Maggiora and Plaintiffs met and conferred ........................................................... 6
9 III. ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 7
10 A. A motion to strike is properly directed to a punitive damages claim. ................... 7
11 B. Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims have not been pled with requisite
specificity and must be stricken. ............................................................................ 7
12
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 10
13
1111 Broadway, Suite 1700
Oakland, CA 94607
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
DEFENDANT MAGGIORA BROS. DRILLING, INC.’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES
HARRIS- MAGGIORA MPA ISO MTS PUNITIVE DAMAGES(86852727.1) - 3/15/2024 11:24 AM
1
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2
Page(s)
3
Cases
4
5 Broadman v. Commission on Judicial Performance
(1998) 18 Cal.4th 1079 ............................................................................................................ 8
6
Butte Fire Cases
7 (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1150 .................................................................................................... 7
8 Commodore Home Systems, Inc. v. Superior Court
(1982) 32 Cal.3d 211 ............................................................................................................... 7
9
Grieves v. Superior Court
10
(1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159 ..................................................................................................... 7
11
Mock v. Michigan Millers Mutual Ins. Co.
12 (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 306 ........................................................................................................ 7
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
13 Morgan v. J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc.
1111 Broadway, Suite 1700
(2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 1078 ............................................................................................ 4, 8, 9
Oakland, CA 94607
14
Conservatorship of O.B.
15
(2020) 9 Cal.5th 989 ................................................................................................................ 8
16
Westrec Marina Management, Inc. v. Jardine Ins. Brokers Orange County, Inc.
17 (2000) 85 Cal.4th 1042 ............................................................................................................ 7
18 Woolstrum v. Mailloux
(1983) 141 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1 ............................................................................................... 7
19
Statutes
20
Cal. Civ. Code § 3294 ............................................................................................................ 4, 5, 7
21
22 Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a) ........................................................................................................... 4, 8
23 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 435 ........................................................................................................ 4, 7
24 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 436 ........................................................................................................ 4, 7
25
26
27
28
3
DEFENDANT MAGGIORA BROS. DRILLING, INC.’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES
HARRIS- MAGGIORA MPA ISO MTS PUNITIVE DAMAGES(86852727.1) - 3/15/2024 11:24 AM
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 Defendant Maggiora Bros. Drilling, Inc. (“Maggiora” or “Defendant”) moves this Court
3 to strike the conclusory allegations as to Maggiora’s alleged “malicious” and “outrageous”
4 conduct and corresponding punitive damage prayer, by Plaintiffs Kathleen Harris, Mikel Harris
5 and Kyle Bingham (“Plaintiffs”) in their Complaint.
6 The allegations for Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages against defendant Maggiora
7 are not factually supported. In fact, Plaintiffs fail to allege any specific conduct by Defendant
8 that would result in punitive damages.
9 For punitive damages, California Civil Code § 3294 states that, as to corporations, a
10 plaintiff is required to show “the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization,
11 ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or
12 managing agent of the corporation.” (Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a); Morgan v. J-M
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
13 Manufacturing Co., Inc. (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 1078.) The law is clear that mere allegations
1111 Broadway, Suite 1700
Oakland, CA 94607
14 against the “corporate monolith” – exactly the tactic employed by Plaintiffs here – are
15 insufficient. No “officer, director, or managing agent” of Maggiora is identified, much less
16 alleged to have any communications with Plaintiffs whatsoever. Accordingly, Defendant’s
17 motion to strike should be granted, with all allegations as to punitive damages stricken from
18 Plaintiffs’ Complaint. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 435 & 436.)
19 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
20 A. Allegations regarding exposures generally.
21 On June 28, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint alleging eleven causes of action
22 related to their renting of property in an agricultural area. (Declaration of Nicholas P. Moran
23 (“Moran Decl.”), ¶ 2; Plaintiffs’ Complaint (“Complaint”) is attached to the RFJN as Exhibit
24 1.) Plaintiff’s filed a DOE amendment on November 11, 2023 erroneously identifying
25 Maggiora Bros. Drilling, Inc. as Maggiora Drilling. (Moran Decl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs allege that
26 DOE defendants were “acting as an agent or representative of every other defendant in doing all
27 acts of the complaint.” (Complaint at 3 ¶ 16.) Plaintiffs allege that they developed health
28 problems because their landlord, Ikey Little and later Jeffrey and Hilary a Chinese company,
4
DEFENDANT MAGGIORA BROS. DRILLING, INC.’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES
HARRIS- MAGGIORA MPA ISO MTS PUNITIVE DAMAGES(86852727.1) - 3/15/2024 11:24 AM
1 and property manager Campos Rental Company, hooked up an agricultural well to their water
2 system, injecting chemicals into their water and failed to disclose or fix the residences water
3 supply. (Complaint at p. 4-7.) On February 28, 2024 Plaintiffs dismissed causes of action five,
4 eight, nine, ten and eleven against Maggiora. (Moran Decl. ¶ 5, Request for Dismissal as to
5 Maggiora attached to RFJN as Exhibit 2.) As to Defendant Maggiora, Plaintiffs asserted six
6 causes of action: Nuisance and Negligence (Causes of Action One and Two), Intentional and
7 Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (Causes of Action Three and Four) False
8 Representation/Concealment (Sixth Cause of Action), Intentional Negligent/Misrepresentation
9 (Seventh Cause of Action), and a claim for punitive damages. (Complaint, pp. 4 – 21).
10 B. Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims are generic and fail to meet the requisite
11 legal standard.
12 Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims are based entirely on the generic allegations against
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
13 all Defendants. Indeed, the “facts” supporting the punitive damages claims – paragraphs 101,
1111 Broadway, Suite 1700
Oakland, CA 94607
14 and 111 – are substantively identical, and are not “facts” as to Maggiora at all, but rather broad,
15 conclusory allegations regarding Defendants in general:
16 As a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct of oppression, fraud, malice and conscious
17 disregard for the rights of Plaintiff, Defendants, and each of them, are liable for punitive
18 damages pursuant to California Civil Code §3294, all in an amount to be determined
19 according to proof at time of trial.
20 Paragraphs 46 -48 contain similar conclusory allegations, using buzzwords without
21 facts that Defendants acted with a “conscious disregard” their conduct was “oppressive” and
22 “knowing, intentional, willful, wanton, obstinate, malicious, oppressive. . ..’” These
23 allegations do not describe any acts of Maggiora nor do they identify any officers, managers,
24 or directors of Maggiora knowing of or ratifying any acts.
25 In Plaintiffs’ third cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress
26 Plaintiffs also provide similar conclusory allegations that Defendants’ conduct was
27 “outrageous” and “knowing, intentional, willful, wanton, obstinate, malicious, oppressive. .
28 ..’” (Complaint ¶¶ 68-69.)
5
DEFENDANT MAGGIORA BROS. DRILLING, INC.’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES
HARRIS- MAGGIORA MPA ISO MTS PUNITIVE DAMAGES(86852727.1) - 3/15/2024 11:24 AM
1 C. Maggiora and Plaintiffs met and conferred
2 In advance of bringing this motion, multiple meet and confer efforts were made by
3 Defendant in an effort to address the issues presented herein. On February 7 2024, counsel for
4 Maggiora sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel requesting dismissal of all causes
5 of action against Maggiora except for negligence. (Moran Decl. ¶ 4, A true and correct copy of
6 the February 7, 2024 met and confer letter is attached as to the Moran Decl. ¶ as Exhibit A.)
7 After emails back and forth on February 12, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to dismiss causes
8 of action five, eight, nine, ten, and eleven against Maggiora, and provided an extension for
9 Maggiora to bring a motion to strike to March 15, 2024. (Moran Decl. ¶ 5; a true and correct
10 copy of the February 12, 2024 email conversation is attached to the Moran Decl. as Exhibit B.)
11 On March 6, 2024, Maggiora sent a follow up letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel outlining in
12 detail the grounds for its motion to strike punitive damages, as well as requesting a meet and
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
13 confer call on March 8, 2024. (Moran Decl. ¶ 6; A true and correct of this March 6, 2024,1
1111 Broadway, Suite 1700
Oakland, CA 94607
14 meet and confer letter is attached to the Moran Decl. as Exhibit C.) On March 7, 2024
15 Plaintiffs’ counsel responded by stating she was planning on filing an amended complaint and
16 requesting a stipulation. Maggiora replied by stating that it would not stipulate without seeing
17 the amended complaint. (Moran Decl. ¶ 7; March 13, 2024 email correspondence between
18 Maggiora and Plaintiffs’ counsel attached to Moran Decl. as Exhibit D.) Plaintiffs’ counsel
19 provided a copy of the proposed First Amended Complaint on March 14, 2014, and stated her
20 intention to file a stipulation and order allowing for the filing of the same. As it was unknown
21 whether said order would be signed and when, Maggiora filed this motion to comply with the
22 agreement to respond to the Complaint by March 15, 2024. (Moran Decl. ¶ 8.)
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26
27 1
The letter is erroneously dated March 8, 2024 but was provided via email to Plaintiffs’ counsel
on March 6, 2024.
28
6
DEFENDANT MAGGIORA BROS. DRILLING, INC.’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES
HARRIS- MAGGIORA MPA ISO MTS PUNITIVE DAMAGES(86852727.1) - 3/15/2024 11:24 AM
1 III. ARGUMENT
2 A. A motion to strike is properly directed to a punitive damages claim.
3 When a pleading fails to include sufficient factual allegations to support a claim for
4 punitive damages, a motion to strike that claim should be granted. In this regard, Code of Civil
5 Procedure section 436 states in relevant part:
6 The court may, upon motion pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its
discretion, and upon terms it deems proper:
7
(a) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any
8 pleading.
9 (b) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity
with the laws of the state, a court rule, or an order of the court.
10
11 (Code Civ. Proc. § 436; see Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 164
12 [adequacy of punitive damage allegations appropriately tested by motion to strike]; Woolstrum
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
13 v. Mailloux (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 11; Commodore Home Systems, Inc. v. Superior
1111 Broadway, Suite 1700
Oakland, CA 94607
14 Court (1982) 32 Cal.3d 211, 214-215.)
15 B. Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims have not been pled with requisite
16 specificity and must be stricken.
17 To sustain a claim for punitive damages, Plaintiffs must show by “clear and convincing
18 evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” (Civ. Code,
19 § 3294.) The oppression or malice must be “despicable,” meaning conduct that is “so vile, base,
20 contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and
21 despised by ordinary decent people.” (Mock v. Michigan Millers Mutual Ins. Co. (1992) 4
22 Cal.App.4th 306, 331, cite omitted.) This requires proof that the defendant was aware of the
23 probable dangerous consequences of its conduct, and that the defendant willfully and
24 deliberately failed to avoid those consequences. (Westrec Marina Management, Inc. v. Jardine
25 Ins. Brokers Orange County, Inc. (2000) 85 Cal.4th 1042, 1050.) Moreover, under the
26 applicable clear and convincing standard, the evidence must be ‘ “ ‘ “so clear as to leave no
27 substantial doubt” ’ ” ’ and ‘ “ ‘ “sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of
28 every reasonable mind.” ’ ” ’ ” (Butte Fire Cases (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1150, 1158.
7
DEFENDANT MAGGIORA BROS. DRILLING, INC.’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES
HARRIS- MAGGIORA MPA ISO MTS PUNITIVE DAMAGES(86852727.1) - 3/15/2024 11:24 AM
1 More importantly, a prerequisite to pursuing punitive damages for a corporation is
2 demonstrating “advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of
3 oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of
4 the corporation.” (Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a); Morgan v. J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc. (2021) 60
5 Cal.App.5th 1078.) The law is clear that mere allegations against the “corporate monolith” is
6 insufficient. 2
7 Morgan clarified that it is insufficient for a plaintiff to assert – as Plaintiffs have here –
8 that the generic corporate conduct of a monolithic corporation entitles them to punitive
9 damages. Instead, punitive damages can only be awarded against a corporation if the acts were
10 taken or approved by an “officer, director, or managing agent.” In Morgan, plaintiff sought
11 punitive damages without identifying any act or particular conduct of any particular J-M
12 Manufacturing (“JMM”) officer, director, or managing agent. Plaintiff argued that “the entire
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
13 organization was involved in the acts giving rise to malice,” and therefore it need not introduce
1111 Broadway, Suite 1700
Oakland, CA 94607
14 clear and convincing evidence that any particular officer, director, or managing agent had the
15 requisite state of mind. (Id.) The court in Morgan, however, disagreed, and instead reaffirmed
16 that the legislature meant what it said when it required that “[w]ith respect to a corporate
17 employer, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of
18 oppression, fraud or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the
19 corporation.” (Id., see also Civ. Code § 3294 (a) & (b)). The court specifically noted “[t]hat the
20
21 2
Further, the “clear and convincing evidence” standard “requires a finding of high probability
.... so clear as to leave no substantial doubt; sufficiently strong to command the unhesitat-ing
22 assent of every reasonable mind.” (Broadman v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1998)
18 Cal.4th 1079, 1098, cite omitted.) In this regard, he Supreme Court of California recently
23 addressed the high bar that clear and convincing evidence must satisfy. (See Conservatorship of
O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989.) When a finding of clear and convincing evidence is challenged, a
24 court must determine whether the record “as a whole contains substantial evidence from which
a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the fact was true.”
25 (Conservatorship of O.B., 9 Cal.5th 989, 995-996.). In its reasoning, the O.B. court highlights
that each standard of proof serves to “to instruct the fact finder concerning the degree of confi-
26 dence our society deems necessary in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type
of adjudication, to allocate the risk of error between the litigants, and to indicate the relative im-
27 portance attached to the ultimate decision.” (Id. quoting Conservatorship of Wendland (2001)
26 Cal.4th 519, 546.) Such a heightened standard cannot be met here.
28
8
DEFENDANT MAGGIORA BROS. DRILLING, INC.’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES
HARRIS- MAGGIORA MPA ISO MTS PUNITIVE DAMAGES(86852727.1) - 3/15/2024 11:24 AM
1 defendant is a large company does not relax a plaintiff’s burden of proof to the point Morgan
2 argues here. We have reviewed the record for evidence from which the jury could have
3 concluded that an officer, director, or managing agent— someone responsible for J-MM’s
4 corporate policy—had the requisite state of mind to support a punitive damage award. We
5 found none.” (Ibid.)
6 Just as in Morgan, Plaintiffs’ Complaint makes, at best, generic allegations of corporate
7 malfeasance, but utterly fails to specifically identify – as is required – that any one of
8 Defendant’s officers, directors, or managing agents responsible for Defendant’s corporate
9 policy had the requisite state of mind to impose punitive damages, or engaged in conduct
10 making imposition of punitive damages appropriate. Instead, it is clear Plaintiffs have no facts
11 to plead beyond their effort to argue that the “corporate monolith” failed to disclose which they
12 believe would establish liability and allow them to win this case – and even then, Plaintiffs have
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
13 no facts capable of showing clear and convincing evidence of any “vile” or “despicable”
1111 Broadway, Suite 1700
Oakland, CA 94607
14 conduct by Maggiora in this case.
15 ///
16 ///
17 ///
18 ///
19 ///
20 ///
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
9
DEFENDANT MAGGIORA BROS. DRILLING, INC.’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES
HARRIS- MAGGIORA MPA ISO MTS PUNITIVE DAMAGES(86852727.1) - 3/15/2024 11:24 AM
1 IV. CONCLUSION
2 Plaintiffs have not pled a proper claim for punitive damages as against Maggiora.
3 Plaintiffs have failed to allege any facts giving rise to punitive damages, nor of any knowledge
4 of these acts by any officers, directors, or managers of Maggiora, directed against Plaintiffs.
5 Here, as there is no way for Plaintiffs to cure these defects, Defendant asks that its motion to
6 strike punitive damages be sustained without leave to amend.
7
8 Dated: March 15, 2024 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
9
10
11
12 By:_______________________________________
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
MICHAEL J. PIETRYKOWSKI
13 CHRISTINE M. WHEATLEY
1111 Broadway, Suite 1700
NICHOLAS P. MORAN
Oakland, CA 94607
14 Attorneys for Defendant
MAGGIORA BROS. DRILLING, INC.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
DEFENDANT MAGGIORA BROS. DRILLING, INC.’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES
HARRIS- MAGGIORA MPA ISO MTS PUNITIVE DAMAGES(86852727.1) - 3/15/2024 11:24 AM
Preview
1 MICHAEL J. PIETRYKOWSKI (SBN: 118677) mpietrykowski@grsm.com 2 CHRISTINE M. WHEATLEY (SBN: 203397) cwheatley@grsm.com 3 NICHOLAS P. MORAN (SBN: 329908) nmoran@grsm.com 4 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 1700 5 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 463-8600 6 Facsimile: (510) 984-1721 7 Attorneys for Defendant Maggiora Bros. Drilling, Inc. erroneously sued as Maggiora Drilling 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF MONTEREY 11 KATHLEEN HARRIS, MIKEL HARRIS ) CASE NO. 21CV002053 and KYLE BINGHAM, ) 12 ) DEFENDANT MAGGIORA BROS. Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP Plaintiffs, ) DRILLING, INC.’S MEMORANDUM 13 vs. ) IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO 1111 Broadway, Suite 1700 ) STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ PRAYER FOR Oakland, CA 94607 14 ESTATE OF IKEY LITTLE, et al. PUNITIVE DAMAGES ) 15 Defendants ) Accompanying Papers: ) 16 ) 1. Notice of Motion to Strike ) 2. Request for Judicial Notice 17 ) 3. Declaration of Nicholas P. Moran ) 4. [Proposed] Order 18 ) ) Date: June 7, 2024 19 ) Time: 8:30 a.m. ) Dept: 15 20 ) Judge: Thomas W. Wills ) 21 ) Complaint Filed: June 28 , 2021 ) 22 ) ) 23 ) 24 25 26 27 28 1 DEFENDANT MAGGIORA BROS. DRILLING, INC.’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES HARRIS- MAGGIORA MPA ISO MTS PUNITIVE DAMAGES(86852727.1) - 3/15/2024 11:24 AM 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 4 4 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................ 4 5 A. Allegations regarding exposures generally. ........................................................... 4 6 B. Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims are generic and fail to meet the 7 requisite legal standard. ......................................................................................... 5 8 C. Maggiora and Plaintiffs met and conferred ........................................................... 6 9 III. ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 7 10 A. A motion to strike is properly directed to a punitive damages claim. ................... 7 11 B. Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims have not been pled with requisite specificity and must be stricken. ............................................................................ 7 12 Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 10 13 1111 Broadway, Suite 1700 Oakland, CA 94607 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 DEFENDANT MAGGIORA BROS. DRILLING, INC.’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES HARRIS- MAGGIORA MPA ISO MTS PUNITIVE DAMAGES(86852727.1) - 3/15/2024 11:24 AM 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Page(s) 3 Cases 4 5 Broadman v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1079 ............................................................................................................ 8 6 Butte Fire Cases 7 (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1150 .................................................................................................... 7 8 Commodore Home Systems, Inc. v. Superior Court (1982) 32 Cal.3d 211 ............................................................................................................... 7 9 Grieves v. Superior Court 10 (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159 ..................................................................................................... 7 11 Mock v. Michigan Millers Mutual Ins. Co. 12 (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 306 ........................................................................................................ 7 Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 13 Morgan v. J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc. 1111 Broadway, Suite 1700 (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 1078 ............................................................................................ 4, 8, 9 Oakland, CA 94607 14 Conservatorship of O.B. 15 (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989 ................................................................................................................ 8 16 Westrec Marina Management, Inc. v. Jardine Ins. Brokers Orange County, Inc. 17 (2000) 85 Cal.4th 1042 ............................................................................................................ 7 18 Woolstrum v. Mailloux (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1 ............................................................................................... 7 19 Statutes 20 Cal. Civ. Code § 3294 ............................................................................................................ 4, 5, 7 21 22 Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a) ........................................................................................................... 4, 8 23 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 435 ........................................................................................................ 4, 7 24 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 436 ........................................................................................................ 4, 7 25 26 27 28 3 DEFENDANT MAGGIORA BROS. DRILLING, INC.’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES HARRIS- MAGGIORA MPA ISO MTS PUNITIVE DAMAGES(86852727.1) - 3/15/2024 11:24 AM 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 Defendant Maggiora Bros. Drilling, Inc. (“Maggiora” or “Defendant”) moves this Court 3 to strike the conclusory allegations as to Maggiora’s alleged “malicious” and “outrageous” 4 conduct and corresponding punitive damage prayer, by Plaintiffs Kathleen Harris, Mikel Harris 5 and Kyle Bingham (“Plaintiffs”) in their Complaint. 6 The allegations for Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages against defendant Maggiora 7 are not factually supported. In fact, Plaintiffs fail to allege any specific conduct by Defendant 8 that would result in punitive damages. 9 For punitive damages, California Civil Code § 3294 states that, as to corporations, a 10 plaintiff is required to show “the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, 11 ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or 12 managing agent of the corporation.” (Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a); Morgan v. J-M Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 13 Manufacturing Co., Inc. (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 1078.) The law is clear that mere allegations 1111 Broadway, Suite 1700 Oakland, CA 94607 14 against the “corporate monolith” – exactly the tactic employed by Plaintiffs here – are 15 insufficient. No “officer, director, or managing agent” of Maggiora is identified, much less 16 alleged to have any communications with Plaintiffs whatsoever. Accordingly, Defendant’s 17 motion to strike should be granted, with all allegations as to punitive damages stricken from 18 Plaintiffs’ Complaint. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 435 & 436.) 19 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 20 A. Allegations regarding exposures generally. 21 On June 28, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint alleging eleven causes of action 22 related to their renting of property in an agricultural area. (Declaration of Nicholas P. Moran 23 (“Moran Decl.”), ¶ 2; Plaintiffs’ Complaint (“Complaint”) is attached to the RFJN as Exhibit 24 1.) Plaintiff’s filed a DOE amendment on November 11, 2023 erroneously identifying 25 Maggiora Bros. Drilling, Inc. as Maggiora Drilling. (Moran Decl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs allege that 26 DOE defendants were “acting as an agent or representative of every other defendant in doing all 27 acts of the complaint.” (Complaint at 3 ¶ 16.) Plaintiffs allege that they developed health 28 problems because their landlord, Ikey Little and later Jeffrey and Hilary a Chinese company, 4 DEFENDANT MAGGIORA BROS. DRILLING, INC.’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES HARRIS- MAGGIORA MPA ISO MTS PUNITIVE DAMAGES(86852727.1) - 3/15/2024 11:24 AM 1 and property manager Campos Rental Company, hooked up an agricultural well to their water 2 system, injecting chemicals into their water and failed to disclose or fix the residences water 3 supply. (Complaint at p. 4-7.) On February 28, 2024 Plaintiffs dismissed causes of action five, 4 eight, nine, ten and eleven against Maggiora. (Moran Decl. ¶ 5, Request for Dismissal as to 5 Maggiora attached to RFJN as Exhibit 2.) As to Defendant Maggiora, Plaintiffs asserted six 6 causes of action: Nuisance and Negligence (Causes of Action One and Two), Intentional and 7 Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (Causes of Action Three and Four) False 8 Representation/Concealment (Sixth Cause of Action), Intentional Negligent/Misrepresentation 9 (Seventh Cause of Action), and a claim for punitive damages. (Complaint, pp. 4 – 21). 10 B. Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims are generic and fail to meet the requisite 11 legal standard. 12 Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims are based entirely on the generic allegations against Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 13 all Defendants. Indeed, the “facts” supporting the punitive damages claims – paragraphs 101, 1111 Broadway, Suite 1700 Oakland, CA 94607 14 and 111 – are substantively identical, and are not “facts” as to Maggiora at all, but rather broad, 15 conclusory allegations regarding Defendants in general: 16 As a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct of oppression, fraud, malice and conscious 17 disregard for the rights of Plaintiff, Defendants, and each of them, are liable for punitive 18 damages pursuant to California Civil Code §3294, all in an amount to be determined 19 according to proof at time of trial. 20 Paragraphs 46 -48 contain similar conclusory allegations, using buzzwords without 21 facts that Defendants acted with a “conscious disregard” their conduct was “oppressive” and 22 “knowing, intentional, willful, wanton, obstinate, malicious, oppressive. . ..’” These 23 allegations do not describe any acts of Maggiora nor do they identify any officers, managers, 24 or directors of Maggiora knowing of or ratifying any acts. 25 In Plaintiffs’ third cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress 26 Plaintiffs also provide similar conclusory allegations that Defendants’ conduct was 27 “outrageous” and “knowing, intentional, willful, wanton, obstinate, malicious, oppressive. . 28 ..’” (Complaint ¶¶ 68-69.) 5 DEFENDANT MAGGIORA BROS. DRILLING, INC.’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES HARRIS- MAGGIORA MPA ISO MTS PUNITIVE DAMAGES(86852727.1) - 3/15/2024 11:24 AM 1 C. Maggiora and Plaintiffs met and conferred 2 In advance of bringing this motion, multiple meet and confer efforts were made by 3 Defendant in an effort to address the issues presented herein. On February 7 2024, counsel for 4 Maggiora sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel requesting dismissal of all causes 5 of action against Maggiora except for negligence. (Moran Decl. ¶ 4, A true and correct copy of 6 the February 7, 2024 met and confer letter is attached as to the Moran Decl. ¶ as Exhibit A.) 7 After emails back and forth on February 12, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to dismiss causes 8 of action five, eight, nine, ten, and eleven against Maggiora, and provided an extension for 9 Maggiora to bring a motion to strike to March 15, 2024. (Moran Decl. ¶ 5; a true and correct 10 copy of the February 12, 2024 email conversation is attached to the Moran Decl. as Exhibit B.) 11 On March 6, 2024, Maggiora sent a follow up letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel outlining in 12 detail the grounds for its motion to strike punitive damages, as well as requesting a meet and Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 13 confer call on March 8, 2024. (Moran Decl. ¶ 6; A true and correct of this March 6, 2024,1 1111 Broadway, Suite 1700 Oakland, CA 94607 14 meet and confer letter is attached to the Moran Decl. as Exhibit C.) On March 7, 2024 15 Plaintiffs’ counsel responded by stating she was planning on filing an amended complaint and 16 requesting a stipulation. Maggiora replied by stating that it would not stipulate without seeing 17 the amended complaint. (Moran Decl. ¶ 7; March 13, 2024 email correspondence between 18 Maggiora and Plaintiffs’ counsel attached to Moran Decl. as Exhibit D.) Plaintiffs’ counsel 19 provided a copy of the proposed First Amended Complaint on March 14, 2014, and stated her 20 intention to file a stipulation and order allowing for the filing of the same. As it was unknown 21 whether said order would be signed and when, Maggiora filed this motion to comply with the 22 agreement to respond to the Complaint by March 15, 2024. (Moran Decl. ¶ 8.) 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 27 1 The letter is erroneously dated March 8, 2024 but was provided via email to Plaintiffs’ counsel on March 6, 2024. 28 6 DEFENDANT MAGGIORA BROS. DRILLING, INC.’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES HARRIS- MAGGIORA MPA ISO MTS PUNITIVE DAMAGES(86852727.1) - 3/15/2024 11:24 AM 1 III. ARGUMENT 2 A. A motion to strike is properly directed to a punitive damages claim. 3 When a pleading fails to include sufficient factual allegations to support a claim for 4 punitive damages, a motion to strike that claim should be granted. In this regard, Code of Civil 5 Procedure section 436 states in relevant part: 6 The court may, upon motion pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: 7 (a) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any 8 pleading. 9 (b) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of the state, a court rule, or an order of the court. 10 11 (Code Civ. Proc. § 436; see Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 164 12 [adequacy of punitive damage allegations appropriately tested by motion to strike]; Woolstrum Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 13 v. Mailloux (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 11; Commodore Home Systems, Inc. v. Superior 1111 Broadway, Suite 1700 Oakland, CA 94607 14 Court (1982) 32 Cal.3d 211, 214-215.) 15 B. Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims have not been pled with requisite 16 specificity and must be stricken. 17 To sustain a claim for punitive damages, Plaintiffs must show by “clear and convincing 18 evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” (Civ. Code, 19 § 3294.) The oppression or malice must be “despicable,” meaning conduct that is “so vile, base, 20 contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and 21 despised by ordinary decent people.” (Mock v. Michigan Millers Mutual Ins. Co. (1992) 4 22 Cal.App.4th 306, 331, cite omitted.) This requires proof that the defendant was aware of the 23 probable dangerous consequences of its conduct, and that the defendant willfully and 24 deliberately failed to avoid those consequences. (Westrec Marina Management, Inc. v. Jardine 25 Ins. Brokers Orange County, Inc. (2000) 85 Cal.4th 1042, 1050.) Moreover, under the 26 applicable clear and convincing standard, the evidence must be ‘ “ ‘ “so clear as to leave no 27 substantial doubt” ’ ” ’ and ‘ “ ‘ “sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of 28 every reasonable mind.” ’ ” ’ ” (Butte Fire Cases (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1150, 1158. 7 DEFENDANT MAGGIORA BROS. DRILLING, INC.’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES HARRIS- MAGGIORA MPA ISO MTS PUNITIVE DAMAGES(86852727.1) - 3/15/2024 11:24 AM 1 More importantly, a prerequisite to pursuing punitive damages for a corporation is 2 demonstrating “advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of 3 oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of 4 the corporation.” (Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a); Morgan v. J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc. (2021) 60 5 Cal.App.5th 1078.) The law is clear that mere allegations against the “corporate monolith” is 6 insufficient. 2 7 Morgan clarified that it is insufficient for a plaintiff to assert – as Plaintiffs have here – 8 that the generic corporate conduct of a monolithic corporation entitles them to punitive 9 damages. Instead, punitive damages can only be awarded against a corporation if the acts were 10 taken or approved by an “officer, director, or managing agent.” In Morgan, plaintiff sought 11 punitive damages without identifying any act or particular conduct of any particular J-M 12 Manufacturing (“JMM”) officer, director, or managing agent. Plaintiff argued that “the entire Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 13 organization was involved in the acts giving rise to malice,” and therefore it need not introduce 1111 Broadway, Suite 1700 Oakland, CA 94607 14 clear and convincing evidence that any particular officer, director, or managing agent had the 15 requisite state of mind. (Id.) The court in Morgan, however, disagreed, and instead reaffirmed 16 that the legislature meant what it said when it required that “[w]ith respect to a corporate 17 employer, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of 18 oppression, fraud or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the 19 corporation.” (Id., see also Civ. Code § 3294 (a) & (b)). The court specifically noted “[t]hat the 20 21 2 Further, the “clear and convincing evidence” standard “requires a finding of high probability .... so clear as to leave no substantial doubt; sufficiently strong to command the unhesitat-ing 22 assent of every reasonable mind.” (Broadman v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1079, 1098, cite omitted.) In this regard, he Supreme Court of California recently 23 addressed the high bar that clear and convincing evidence must satisfy. (See Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989.) When a finding of clear and convincing evidence is challenged, a 24 court must determine whether the record “as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the fact was true.” 25 (Conservatorship of O.B., 9 Cal.5th 989, 995-996.). In its reasoning, the O.B. court highlights that each standard of proof serves to “to instruct the fact finder concerning the degree of confi- 26 dence our society deems necessary in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication, to allocate the risk of error between the litigants, and to indicate the relative im- 27 portance attached to the ultimate decision.” (Id. quoting Conservatorship of Wendland (2001) 26 Cal.4th 519, 546.) Such a heightened standard cannot be met here. 28 8 DEFENDANT MAGGIORA BROS. DRILLING, INC.’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES HARRIS- MAGGIORA MPA ISO MTS PUNITIVE DAMAGES(86852727.1) - 3/15/2024 11:24 AM 1 defendant is a large company does not relax a plaintiff’s burden of proof to the point Morgan 2 argues here. We have reviewed the record for evidence from which the jury could have 3 concluded that an officer, director, or managing agent— someone responsible for J-MM’s 4 corporate policy—had the requisite state of mind to support a punitive damage award. We 5 found none.” (Ibid.) 6 Just as in Morgan, Plaintiffs’ Complaint makes, at best, generic allegations of corporate 7 malfeasance, but utterly fails to specifically identify – as is required – that any one of 8 Defendant’s officers, directors, or managing agents responsible for Defendant’s corporate 9 policy had the requisite state of mind to impose punitive damages, or engaged in conduct 10 making imposition of punitive damages appropriate. Instead, it is clear Plaintiffs have no facts 11 to plead beyond their effort to argue that the “corporate monolith” failed to disclose which they 12 believe would establish liability and allow them to win this case – and even then, Plaintiffs have Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 13 no facts capable of showing clear and convincing evidence of any “vile” or “despicable” 1111 Broadway, Suite 1700 Oakland, CA 94607 14 conduct by Maggiora in this case. 15 /// 16 /// 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 9 DEFENDANT MAGGIORA BROS. DRILLING, INC.’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES HARRIS- MAGGIORA MPA ISO MTS PUNITIVE DAMAGES(86852727.1) - 3/15/2024 11:24 AM 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 Plaintiffs have not pled a proper claim for punitive damages as against Maggiora. 3 Plaintiffs have failed to allege any facts giving rise to punitive damages, nor of any knowledge 4 of these acts by any officers, directors, or managers of Maggiora, directed against Plaintiffs. 5 Here, as there is no way for Plaintiffs to cure these defects, Defendant asks that its motion to 6 strike punitive damages be sustained without leave to amend. 7 8 Dated: March 15, 2024 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 9 10 11 12 By:_______________________________________ Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP MICHAEL J. PIETRYKOWSKI 13 CHRISTINE M. WHEATLEY 1111 Broadway, Suite 1700 NICHOLAS P. MORAN Oakland, CA 94607 14 Attorneys for Defendant MAGGIORA BROS. DRILLING, INC. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 DEFENDANT MAGGIORA BROS. DRILLING, INC.’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES HARRIS- MAGGIORA MPA ISO MTS PUNITIVE DAMAGES(86852727.1) - 3/15/2024 11:24 AM