Evans v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al

Filing 21

ORDER DENYING 9 Motion to Strike Punitive Damages. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on February 21, 2017. (jswlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/21/2017)

1
2
3

NOT FOR CITATION

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

Plaintiff,

8

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
STRIKE

v.

9
10

Re: Dkt. No. 9

HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., et al.,
Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-07191-JSW

WILLIAM EVANS,

12
Now before the Court for consideration is the motion to strike filed by Defendants Wing

13
14

Enterprises, Inc. dba Little Giant Ladder Systems and Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. (collectively

15

“Defendants”). The Court has considered the parties’ papers, relevant legal authority, and the

16

record in this case, and the Court finds the motion suitable for disposition without oral argument.1

17

See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The Court VACATES the hearing scheduled for February 24, 2017,

18

and it HEREBY DENIES Defendants’ motion.
BACKGROUND

19

Plaintiff alleges that his fiancée purchased a Little Giant ladder at Home Depot. (Notice of

20
21

Removal, Ex. A, Compl. ¶ 11.) On March 6, 2016, while Plaintiff was using the ladder as an

22

extension ladder, “the ladder flexed and bent at the hinge element, causing the ladder to collapse”

23

while he was on it. Plaintiff fell and suffered “severe injuries, including multiple fractures.” (Id. ¶

24

13.) Plaintiff alleges the ladder suffered from manufacturing or design defects, and he also alleges

25
26
1

27
28

Plaintiff filed two opposition briefs. (Dkt. Nos. 15, 19.) Because the second brief was
filed after Defendants filed their reply, the Court has considered the first opposition on file,
Docket No. 15.

1

that Defendants were aware of these defects but failed to warn him of those defects.2
Based on these and other allegations, which the Court shall address as necessary, Plaintiff

2
3

filed this Complaint and asserts claims against Defendants for products liability (design defect and

4

manufacturing defect), failure to warn, products liability negligence, and violations of California’s

5

Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.3

6

Plaintiff also asserts a claim for punitive damages, pursuant to California Civil Code section

7

3294.4
ANALYSIS

8

Defendants move to strike the claim for punitive damages, set forth in paragraphs 45-52 of

9

the Complaint and in paragraph 8 of the Prayer for Relief, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Procedure 12(f). Under Rule 12(f), a court may strike from a pleading “any insufficient defense or

12

any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Immaterial

13

matter “is that which has no essential or important relationship to the claim for relief or the

14

defenses being pleaded.” Fantasy Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993), rev’d on

15

other grounds by Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994) (internal citations and quotations

16

omitted). Impertinent material “consists of statements that do not pertain, and are not necessary,

17

to the issues in question.” Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted). “Rule 12(f) does not

18

authorize district courts to strike claims for damages on the ground that such claims are precluded

19

as a matter of law.” Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft, Inc., 618 F.3d 970, 974-75 (9th Cir. 2010).

20
2

21

Plaintiff includes facts in his opposition that are not in his Complaint. The Court has not
considered those facts to resolve this motion.

22

3

23
24
25
26

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on November 4, 2016, in San Mateo County Superior Court.
Defendants assert they were served on November 18, 2016, and they removed to this Court on
December 15, 2016. (Notice of Removal, ¶¶ 1, 8.) It is undisputed that the parties are completely
diverse. Defendants assert that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 based on Plaintiff’s
allegations relating to the nature of the injuries and the type of damages he seeks. Plaintiff has not
challenged the Court’s jurisdiction. The Court concludes Defendant has met its burden to show
the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, __ U.S. __,
133 S.Ct. 1345, 1348-49 (2013).
4

27
28

Although styled as claim for relief, “[t]here is no cause of action for punitive damages.
Punitive or exemplary damages are remedies available to a party who can plead and prove the
facts and circumstances” outlined in Civil Code section 3294. Grieves v. Superior Court, 157 Cal.
App. 3d 159, 163-64 (1984) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
2

Motions to strike are regarded with disfavor because they are often used as delaying tactics

1
2

and because of the limited importance of pleadings in federal practice. Colaprico v. Sun

3

Microsystems Inc., 758 F. Supp. 1335, 1339 (N.D. Cal. 1991). A motion to strike should be

4

resorted to only when the matter to be stricken could have no possible bearing on the issues in

5

litigation. LeDuc v. Kentucky Central Life Ins. Co., 814 F. Supp. 820, 830 (N.D. Cal. 1992).

6

“Granting a motion to strike may be proper if it will eliminate serious risks of prejudice to the

7

moving party, delay, or confusion of the issues.” Rees v. PNC Bank, N.A., 308 F.R.D. 266, 271

8

(N.D. Cal. 2015) (citing Fantasy, Inc., 984 F.2d at 1527-28). Ultimately, the decision as to

9

whether to strike allegations is a matter within the Court’s discretion. Colaprico, 758 F. Supp. at

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

1339.
Defendants argue Plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory and are unsupported by facts that

12

would support an award of punitive damages. In order to support a claim for punitive damages

13

under California law, Plaintiff will be required to prove “by clear and convincing evidence that the

14

defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice[.]” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294. “Conduct

15

which may be characterized as unreasonable, negligent, grossly negligent or reckless does not

16

satisfy the highly culpable state of mind warranting punitive damages.” Woolstrum v. Mailoux,

17

141 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 1, 10 (1983). A plaintiff may recover an “award of punitive damages for a

18

nonintentional tort where defendant’s conduct which causes injury is of such severity or shocking

19

character that it warrants the same treatment as that accorded to willful misconduct-conduct in

20

which the defendant intends to cause harm,” i.e. where it can be considered “wanton and reckless”

21

or in “conscious disregard of the plaintiff’s rights.” Nolin v. Nat’l Convenience Stores, Inc. 95

22

Cal. App. 3d 279, 286 (1979).

23

Section 3294 defines malice as “conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause

24

injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and

25

conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” Section 3294 defines oppression as

26

“despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of

27

that person’s rights.” Section 3294 defines fraud as “an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or

28

concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the
3

1

def
fendant of th
hereby depriv
ving a person of property or legal rig or other
ty
ghts
rwise causin injury.”
ng

2

Plaintif agues he alleges facts to support ea of these standards. Plaintiff recites these
ff
a
t
ach

3

statutory defini
itions in his Complaint. (Compl. ¶¶ 47-48.) Pla
aintiff also al
lleges Defen
ndants’

4

kno
owingly con
ncealed “dam
mages and ris associate with the [
sks
ed
[ladder] know
wing that Pla
aintiff and

5

the public wou be using their ladders in activities and in situa
e
uld
t
s
s
ations in wh a failure of the
hich
e

6

lad
dder would re
esult in catas
strophic inju includin the risk of death” and that Defend
ury,
ng
f
dants acted in
n

7

“co
onscious disr
regard of” Plaintiff’s saf
fety. (Id. ¶¶ 48, 52; see a id. ¶ 51.a-b.)
also

8
9

Defend
dants have no moved to dismiss Plai
ot
intiff’s subst
tantive claim for relief, nor have
ms
the moved to dismiss Plai
ey
intiff’s reque for dama
est
ages under R 12(b)(6) See, e.g.,
Rule
).
Wh
hittlestone, 618 F.3d at 974. Defend
6
9
dants have no shown tha Plaintiff’s request for p
ot
at
punitive

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

dam
mages is red
dundant, imm
material, imp
pertinent or s
scandalous. Plaintiff inc
cludes the facts that he

12

cla
aims warrant an imposition of punitiv damages and “malice intent, kno
t
ve
e,
owledge and other

13

con
nditions of th mind may be alleged generally.” Fed. R. Civ P. 9(b). Cf Rees, 308 F.R.D. at
he
y
v.
Cf.

14

273
3-74 (denyin motion to strike wher the plaintiff alleged th defendants’ conduct w
ng
o
re
he
was

15

“m
malicious and willful; in conscious disregard of th rights and safety of [p
d
c
he
d
p]laintiff in t the
that

16

act
tions were ca
alculated to injure [p]lain
i
ntiff,” and co
oncluding th “[e]ven if conclusory and
hat
y

17

uns
supported, su an averm of mali or fraudu
uch
ment
ice
ulent intent is sufficient t support a request for
to

18

pun
nitive damag under Ca Civ. Code § 3294(a) i federal co on a mot
ges
al.
e
in
ourt
e”).
tion to strike

19

Accord
dingly, the Court DENIE Defendant motion to strike.
ES
nts’
o

20

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.

21
22
23

Da
ated: Februar 21, 2017
ry
___
__________
___________
__________
________
JEF
FFREY S. W
WHITE
Un
nited States D
District Judg
ge

24
25
26
27
28
4