Abdollah Nouri v. Ryobi America Corporation et al

Filing 14

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT HOME DEPOT USA, INC.S MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES 7 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II (lc). Modified on 10/10/2014 .(lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6

United States District Court
Central District of California

7
8
9
10

Case No. CV 2:14-6283-ODW(PJWx)

ABDOLLAH NOURI,
Plaintiff,

11

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT

v.

12
13

RYOBI AMERICA CORPORATION, a

HOME DEPOT USA, INC.’S

14

subsidiary of ONE WORLD

MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE

15

TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; HOME DEPOT

DAMAGES [7]

16

USA, INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive
Defendants.

17

I.

18

INTRODUCTION

19

Before the Court is Defendant Home Depot USA, Inc.’s Motion to Strike

20

Punitive Damages from Plaintiff’s Complaint paragraphs 22 through 24, inclusive,

21

and Prayer paragraph 7 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). (ECF No.

22

7.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion.1
II.

23

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

24

On June 22, 2012, Abdollah Nouri used a Ryobi circular saw to cut a 2 x 2

25

piece of wood. (Compl. ¶ 6.) When the wood became lodged between the blade and

26

the guard of the saw Nouri attempted to remove it with his hand. (Compl. ¶ 7.) At

27
28

1

After carefully considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion, the Court
deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15.

1

this point, the saw became active and severed Nouri’s left index finger. (Compl.¶ 7-

2

8.) That same day Nouri underwent surgery with Dr. Bruce M. Ascough. (Compl. ¶

3

9.) Nouri suffered pain, bruising, swelling, and the loss of his index finger, which has

4

made it difficult for him to engage in daily tasks. (Compl. ¶ 10.)

5

On June 18, 2014, Nouri filed suit against Ryobi America Corporation

6

(“Ryboi”), a subsidiary of One World Technologies, Inc., and Home Depot USA, Inc.

7

(“Home Depot”) in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging three causes of action: (1)

8

Strict Products Liability—Design Defect; (2) Negligence; and (3) Failure to Warn.

9

(Compl. ¶ 1.) The first two apply only to Ryobi and the third applies to Ryobi and

10

Home Depot. (Compl. ¶ 3-7.)

11

In the First Cause of Action, Plaintiff alleges that “the conduct and acts of

12

Defendant Ryobi…in allowing such an extremely dangerous saw to be used by a

13

member of the general public…constitute fraud, malice, and oppression toward

14

Plaintiff and a willful and conscious disregard of the safety of Plaintiff.” (Compl.

15

¶ 22.) Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Ryobi “had advance knowledge of the

16

unfitness of any employee” responsible for the actions and omissions alleged in the

17

Complaint, and that Defendant Ryobi “authorized the ratified wrongful conduct upon

18

which punitive damages are claimed.”

19

advance knowledge, conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or acts of

20

oppression, fraud, or malice” to “the officers, directors, and/or managing agents of

21

Defendant Ryobi.” (Compl. ¶ 24.)

(Compl. ¶ 23.) Plaintiff attributes “the

22

On August 11, 2014, Defendant Home Depot removed the case to federal court

23

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), and one week later filed the instant Motion moving

24

to strike from Plaintiff’s Complaint paragraphs 22 through 24, inclusive, and Prayer

25

paragraph 7 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). (ECF Nos. 1,7.)

26

Defendant Home Depot contends that Plaintiff’s punitive damages allegations are

27

“conclusory” and therefore do not meet the minimum pleading requirements under

28

California law. (Mot 3.)

2

III.

1

LEGAL STANDARD

2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that “[t]he court may strike from

3

a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or

4

scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). The decision whether to grant a motion to

5

strike is made at the court’s discretion. Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1528

6

(9th Cir. 1993), rev’d on other grounds in Fogerty v. Fantastic, Inc., 510 U.S. 517

7

(1994)). In using its discretion, the court must view the pleadings in the light most

8

favorable to the non-moving party. In re 2TheMart.com Sec. Litig., 114 F. Supp. 2d

9

955, 965 (C.D. Cal. 2000).

10

Courts may grant a motion to strike “to avoid the expenditure of time and

11

money that must arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues

12

prior to trial . . . .” Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir.

13

2010) (quoting Fantasy, 984 F.2d at 1527 (9th Cir. 1993). Courts may also grant such

14

a motion in order to streamline the resolution of the action and focus the jury’s

15

attention on the real issues in the case. Fantasy, 984 F.2d at 1528. Motions to strike

16

are generally disfavored due to the limited role that pleadings play in federal practice,

17

and because they are often used as a delaying tactic. Cal. Dept. of Toxic Substances

18

Control v. Alco Pacific, Inc., 217 F. Supp. 2d 1028, 1033 (C.D. Cal. 2002).

19

California law governs a Plaintiff’s substantive claim for punitive damages

20

under California Civil Code § 3294; however, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

21

govern punitive damages claims procedurally with respect to the adequacy of

22

pleadings. Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 231 F.R.D. 405, 406 (C.D. Cal.

23

2005) (citing Bureerong v. Uvawas, 922 F.Supp. 1450, 1480 (C.D. Cal. 1996).

24

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), a pleading need only “contain … a

25

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and

26

… a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The

27

Central District of California has previously held that “conclusory allegations of

28

3

1

oppression, fraud, or malice compl[y] with federal pleading standards for a claim of

2

punitive damages under California law.” Clark, 231 F.R.D. at 405 (C.D. Cal. 2005).
IV.

3

DISCUSSION

4

Defendant Home Depot filed the instant Motion to Strike from Plaintiff’s

5

Complaint paragraphs 22 through 24, inclusive, and Prayer paragraph 7 pursuant to

6

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). (Mot 1.) Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s

7

punitive damages allegations do not meet California Civil Code requirements because

8

they are “conclusory” and therefore do not meet the minimum pleading requirements

9

under California law. (Mot 3.)

10

The instant Motion is premised on the flawed proposition that Defendant’s

11

attack on Plaintiff’s punitive damages allegations in the Complaint is a substantive

12

issue. (Mot 3.)

13

state tort claims is a substantive issue so California Civil Code § 3294 governs even if

14

the litigation occurs in federal court. Clark, 231 F.R.D. at 406 (C.D. Cal. 2005)

15

(citing Bureerong, 922 F.Supp. at 1480 (C.D.Cal.1996). However, the adequacy of

16

Plaintiff’s pleading is a procedural issue and therefore the Federal Rules of Civil

17

Procedure govern. Id.

The determination of an award of punitive damages brought under

18

Defendant concedes that Rule 8 “creates liberal pleading requirements for

19

litigants,” yet continues to argue that Plaintiff’s punitive damages allegations do not

20

meet the minimum pleading requirements under California law.

21

Defendant has not provided the Court with any federal authority that contradicts what

22

this District has already held—that is, “conclusory allegations of oppression, fraud, or

23

malice” are sufficient to survive a motion to strike because they “compl[y] with

24

federal pleading standards for a claim of punitive damages under California law.”

25

Clark, 231 F.R.D. at 405 (C.D. Cal. 2005).

(Reply 2.)

26

If Defendant wanted to eliminate Plaintiff’s punitive damages allegations

27

pursuant to California’s heightened pleading standards, Defendant should not have

28

removed the case to federal court.

4

V.

1

CONCLUSION

2

Plaintiff’s punitive damages allegations, even if “conclusory” as Defendant

3

contends, are sufficient to survive a motion to strike. For the reasons discussed above,

4

the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 7.)

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

October 9, 2014

8
9
10

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5