Trial Materials: Ruby Compass LLC -v - Smart 3PL Group LLC et al Print

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                TERI T.      PHAM (SBN    193383)                                                ELECTRONICALLY FILED
     wham@epgrlawyers'com                                                             SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA
                                                                                      COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO
     rschaefer@epgrlawyers. com
     ENENSTEIN PHAM GLASS & RABBAT, LLP                                               4/1   5/2024 10:55   AM
     3200                     500
            Brlstol Street, Sulte
                                                                                            Leanne Landeros,    DEPUTY
                                                                                      By:
     Costa Mesa, California 92626
     Phone: (714) 292-0262


     Attorneys for   Ruby Compass LLC


                          SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                                       COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

10

11    RUBY COMPASS LLC,             a Delaware limited                  Case No. CIVSB2204283

12
      liability   company,                                              [Assigned t0 the Hon. Carlos   M Cabrera]
             Plaintiff,
13
                                                                    PLAINTIFF’S BENCH BRIEF
             VS.                                                    REGARDING PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND
14                                                                  SPECIAL DAMAGES
      SMART 3PL GROUP LLC, a Delaware
15    limited liability company; and     DOES           1 -   10,   Complaint filed:       March 1, 2022
                                                                    Cross—Complaint filed: May 11, 2022
16
             Defendants.                                            Trial Date:           April 8, 2024

17

      SMART 3PL GROUP LLC, a Delaware
18
      limited liability company,

19
             Cross—Complainant,
20
             VS.

21
      RUBY COMPASS LLC,             a Delaware limited

22    liability   company; and   DOES    11   -
                                                  20,

             Cross-Defendants.
23

24

25

26

27

28


                                                                    1

             PLAINTIFF’S     BENCH BRIEF REGARDING PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND SPECIAL DAMAGES
                 This bench brief addresses two issues: (1) Whether punitive damages are special damages;

     and   (2)    whether punitive damages                 may be awarded              at trial   without being specially pled in a

     complaint. In sum,         it is   settled   under California law that punitive damages are not special damages

     and d0 not need       to   be specially pled to be awarded                    at trial.


             I.         PUNITIVE             DAMAGES ARE NOT SPECIAL DAMAGES
                 Defendant      is   mistaken in claiming that punitive damages are considered special damages

     and therefore       may not be awarded           to Plaintiff in light            0f the Court’s Order      in limine.    Section 13

     of the contract only precludes certain damages, namely “loss 0f profit or                                         special, indirect, or


     consequential damages.” These are                 all   specific types           ofw           damages. (See       CACI 351      [special


10   damages;      CACI    353       [loss   0f profits].)

11               Punitive damages (generally               known    as   exemplary damages), on the other hand, are only

12   awardable for        torts      and are   its   own   species of damages.                 They   are neither general nor special


13   damages.

14               The   distinction      between general and special damages has been explained by our Court 0f

15   Appeal:

16               The   distinction       between general damages and special damages                             is    universally
                 recognized: General damages are damages that courts believe generally                                  flow   from
17
                 the kind 0f substantive          wrong done by the defendant.                 Special damages, on the other

18               hand, include items 0f loss that are more 0r less peculiar to the particular plaintiff
                 in that the plaintiff actually suffered the loss in the specific                      amount.
19

20   (O’Hara      v.   Storer Communications, Inc. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1101, 1113.)


21               In contrast, punitive         damages by definition                are not intended t0    compensate the injured

22   party, but rather to punish the tortfeasor               whose wrongful              action   was   intentional 0r malicious,      and

23   to deter the tortfeasor          and others from similar extreme conduct. (Ferguson                        v.   Liefif Cabraser,

24   Heimann       & Bernstein (2003) 30 Ca1.4th               1037, 1046; see also CiV. Code, § 3294, subd. (a)

25   [punitive     damages      are     “damages     for the sake   0f example and by              way 0f punishing the

26   defendant”].)       The purpose of punitive damages                 is    a purely public        one—the   public’s goal being to


27   punish wrongdoing and thereby t0 protect                   itself   from fiJture misconduct,             either    by the same

28   tortfeasor 0r other potential wrongdoers.                 (Adams         v.   Murakami (1991) 54 Cal.3d             105, 110.)



                                                                         2
            PLAINTIFF’S         BENCH BRIEF REGARDING PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND SPECIAL DAMAGES