The court denies Defendant Huntington Beach Propane, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Punitive Damages and “Pain and Suffering” allegations from Plaintiff Mark Sacchetti’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Plaintiff asks for punitive damages in the wrongful termination claim. (FAC, ¶ 43.) Punitive damages may be recovered for a Tameny claim. But, such damages are only recoverable upon a showing of malice, fraud or oppression. (CACI no. 2433; Gantt v. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1083, 1101.) In determining whether a complaint states facts sufficient to sustain punitive damages, the challenged allegations must be read in context with the other facts alleged in the complaint, and even though certain language pleads ultimate facts or conclusions of law, such language when read in context with the facts alleged as to the defendant's conduct may adequately plead the motive requisite to recovery of punitive damages. (Monge v. Superior Court (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 503.) Defendant argues that Plaint
Hearing Date
January 12, 2018
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
The court denies Defendant Huntington Beach Propane, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Punitive Damages and “Pain and Suffering” allegations from Plaintiff Mark Sacchetti’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Plaintiff asks for punitive damages in the wrongful termination claim. (FAC, ¶ 43.) Punitive damages may be recovered for a Tameny claim. But, such damages are only recoverable upon a showing of malice, fraud or oppression. (CACI no. 2433; Gantt v. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1083, 1101.) In determining whether a complaint states facts sufficient to sustain punitive damages, the challenged allegations must be read in context with the other facts alleged in the complaint, and even though certain language pleads ultimate facts or conclusions of law, such language when read in context with the facts alleged as to the defendant's conduct may adequately plead the motive requisite to recovery of punitive damages. (Monge v. Superior Court (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 503.) Defendant argues that Plaint