Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00651/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00651-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVIEL PROVENCIO, JR ., et al., ) 

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY, )

CORPORATION OF AMERICA, et al., )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

1: 07 - CV - 0651 AWI DLB

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED

MOTION TO DISMISS 

(Document #16)

BACKGROUND

On January 2, 2007, Plaintiff filed a complaint for wrongful death in the Kern County

Superior Court. The complaint alleges that Defendant’s product caused the death of Decedent

Daniel Provencio (“Decedent”). The complaint alleges that Decedent died from a gunshot

wound to his head inflicted with Defendant’s 40mm rifle by a non-party Wasco State Prison

Guard. The complaint is brought by Decedent’s minor child, Plaintiff Daniel Provencio, Jr,

personally and as successor in interest to Decedent, by his guardian ad litem, Maria Lucero

(“Minor Plaintiff”), and by Decedent’s parents, Plaintiff Johnny G. Provencio and Plaintiff

Nancy Mendoza (“Parent Plaintiffs”). The complaint alleges a products liability claim. On

April 30, 2007, Defendant removed this action to this court because the parties are citizens of

different states and over $75,000 is in controversy. 

On May 7, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. Defendant contends that Parent

Case 1:07-cv-00651-AWI -TAG Document 22 Filed 07/27/07 Page 1 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

Plaintiffs must be dismissed because they lack standing to assert a wrongful death claim. 

Defendants also contend that the complaint’s request for punitive damages must be stricken

because punitive damages are not recoverable as a matter of law in a wrongful death action. 

LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

A complaint may be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the

claim that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department, 901 F.2d

696, 699 (9 Cir. 1990). A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal can be based on the failure to allege a th

cognizable legal theory or the failure to allege sufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. 

Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 533-34 (9 Cir.1984). In considering a th

motion to dismiss, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question,

Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in

the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and resolve all doubts in the pleader's

favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

B. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

Because standing is jurisdictional, it is properly raised through Rule 12(b)(1) and not

through Rule 12(b)(6). White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9 Cir. 2000). Whether a “particular

th

party has standing to pursue a claim naturally precedes the question of whether that party has

successfully stated a claim.” Moreland v. City of Las Vegas, 159 F.3d 365, 369 (9 Cir. 1998). th

The plaintiff has the burden to establish that subject matter jurisdiction is proper. 

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); In re Ford Motor Co., 264 F.3d

952, 957 (9 Cir. 2001). This burden, at the pleading stage, must be met by pleading sufficient th

allegations to show a proper basis for the court to assert subject matter jurisdiction over the

action. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936); Fed. R. Civ. P.

Case 1:07-cv-00651-AWI -TAG Document 22 Filed 07/27/07 Page 2 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

8(a)(1). The pleading must show “affirmatively and distinctly the existence of whatever is

essential to federal jurisdiction, and if [it] does not do so, the court, on having the defect called to

its attention or on discovering the same, must dismiss the case, unless the defect be corrected by

amendment.” Tosco Corp. v. Communities For A Better Env’t, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9 Cir. th

2001). When a defendant challenges jurisdiction “facially,” all material allegations in the

complaint are assumed true, and the question for the court is whether the lack of federal

jurisdiction appears from the face of the pleading itself. See Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358,

362 (9 Cir. 2004); Thornhill Publishing Co. v. General Telephone Electronics, 594 F.2d 730, th

733 (9 Cir. 1979). th

C. Motion to Strike

Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the court to strike from “any

pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous

matter.” The purpose of a Rule 12(f) motion is to avoid the costs that arise from litigating

spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial. Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins

Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9 Cir.1983). Immaterial matter is defined as matter that “has no th

essential or important relationship to the claim for relief or the defenses being pleaded.” Fantasy,

Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9 Cir 1993) (quoting 5 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R.

th

Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1382, at 706-07 (1990)), rev'd on other grounds, 510

U.S. 517 (1994). Impertinent matter is defined as “statements that do not pertain, and are not

necessary, to the issues in question.” Fantasy, Inc. 984 F.2d at 1527. Granting a motion to strike

may be proper if it will make the trial less complicated or if allegations being challenged are so

unrelated to plaintiff's claims as to be unworthy of any consideration as a defense and that their

presence in the pleading will be prejudicial to the moving party. Id.

DISCUSSION

Under California law, there are several types of actions that may concern a decedent. A

survival action is a personal injury action that survives to permit a decedent's estate to recover

Case 1:07-cv-00651-AWI -TAG Document 22 Filed 07/27/07 Page 3 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

damages that would have been personally awarded to the decedent had he survived. See

Cal.Code Civ. Pro. §§ 377.20, 377.30 . A wrongful death action, in contrast, is an independent

claim for damages personally suffered by a decedent’s heirs as a result of the decedent's death. 

See Cal.Code Civ. § 377.60. A wrongful death action is intended to compensate the decedent’s

heirs for the losses they have sustained as a result of the death, such as loss of financial support

and society. Garofalo v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 85 Cal.App.4th 1060, 1072 (2000). 

A. Standing for a Wrongful Death Action

Defendants contend that Parent Plaintiffs must be dismissed from this action. 

Defendants contend that Parent Plaintiffs do not have standing to assert a wrongful death action

based on Defendants’ alleged wrongful conduct towards Decedent. 

“Standing is a necessary element of federal-court jurisdiction.” Byrd v. Guess, 137 F.3d

1126, 1131 (9 Cir. 1998); Big Country Foods, Inc. v. Board of Education, 952 F.2d 1173, 1176 th

(9 Cir. 1992). Whether a “particular party has standing to pursue a claim naturally precedes the th

question of whether that party has successfully stated a claim.” Moreland v. City of Las Vegas,

159 F.3d 365, 369 (9 Cir. 1998). The appropriate question of standing is “whether the plaintiff th

has ‘alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy’ as to warrant his invocation

of federal-court jurisdiction.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975) (citation omitted);

Immigrant Assistance Project of the L.A. County Fed’n of Labor v. INS, 306 F.3d 842, 859 (9th

Cir. 2002). As the Supreme Court has explained:

The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing these

elements. Since they are not mere pleading requirements but rather an

indispensable part of the plaintiff’s case, each element must be supported in the

same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e.,

with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the

litigation. At the pleading stage, general factual allegations of injury resulting

from the defendant’s conduct may suffice, for on a motion to dismiss we

“presume that general allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary

to support the claim.” In response to a summary judgment motion, however, the

plaintiff can no longer rest on such “mere allegations,” but must “set forth” by

affidavit or other evidence “specific facts,” which for purposes of the summary

judgment motion will be taken to be true. And at the final stage, those facts (if

controverted) must be “supported adequately by the evidence adduced at trial.”

Case 1:07-cv-00651-AWI -TAG Document 22 Filed 07/27/07 Page 4 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 5

Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561 (internal citations omitted).

Standing to sue in a wrongful death action is governed by California Code of Civil

Procedure § 377.60, and the category of persons eligible to bring a wrongful death action is

strictly construed. Steed v. Imperial Airlines, 12 Cal.3d 115, 119-20 (1974); Bouley v. Long

Beach Memorial Medical Center, 127 Cal.App.4th 601, 606 (2005); Chavez v. Carpenter, 91

Cal.App.4th 1433, 1438 (2001); Fraizer v. Velkura, 91 Cal.App.4th 942, 945 (2001); Marks v.

Lyerla, 1 Cal. App. 4th 556, 559-60 (1991); see also Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 377.60. Section

377.60 establishes a wrongful death cause of action and delineates who may avail themselves of

the action. In relevant part, Section 377.60 reads:

A cause of action for the death of a person caused by the wrongful act or neglect

of another may be asserted by any of the following persons or by the decedent's

personal representative on their behalf:

(a) The decedent’s surviving spouse, domestic partner, children, and issue of

deceased children, or, if there is no surviving issue of the decedent, the persons,

including the surviving spouse or domestic partner, who would be entitled to the

property of the decedent by intestate succession.

(b) Whether or not qualified under subdivision (a), if they were dependent on the

decedent, the putative spouse, children of the putative spouse, stepchildren, or

parents. As used in this subdivision, “putative spouse” means the surviving spouse

of a void or voidable marriage who is found by the court to have believed in good

faith that the marriage to the decedent was valid.

Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 377.60. California Probate Code § 6402 sets the order of intestate

succession under Section 377.60. See Chavez, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1440; Frazier, 91 Cal.App.4th

at 946. When there is no surviving spouse or domestic partner, Section 6402, in relevant part,

provides the following succession:

(a) To the issue of the decedent, the issue taking equally if they are all of the same

degree of kinship to the decedent, but if of unequal degree those of more remote

degree take in the manner provided in Section 240.

(b) If there is no surviving issue, to the decedent's parent or parents equally.

(c) If there is no surviving issue or parent, to the issue of the parents or either of

them, the issue taking equally if they are all of the same degree of kinship to the

decedent, but if of unequal degree those of more remote degree take in the manner

provided in Section 240.

Case 1:07-cv-00651-AWI -TAG Document 22 Filed 07/27/07 Page 5 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 6

(d) If there is no surviving issue, parent or issue of a parent, but the decedent is

survived by one or more grandparents or issue of grandparents, to the grandparent

or grandparents equally, or to the issue of those grandparents if there is no

surviving grandparent, the issue taking equally if they are all of the same degree of

kinship to the decedent, but if of unequal degree those of more remote degree take

in the manner provided in Section 240.

Cal. Prob. Code § 6402(a)-(d). 

A plaintiff who brings a wrongful death suit as an heir must establish the absence of issue

by the decedent and the entitlement or propriety of the heir to seek recovery under Section

377.60, i.e. that the heir actually has standing under Section 377.60. See Nelson v. County of

Los Angeles, 113 Cal.App.4th 783, 789 (2004); Coats v. K-Mart Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 961,

969-70 (1989); Jolley v. Clemens, 28 Cal.App.2d 55, 74-75 (1938). In this action, the complaint

alleges that Decedent leaves a son, Minor Plaintiff. As such, Parent Plaintiffs may not sue as

heirs for Decedent’s death pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.60(a).

However, there is still another method by which Parent Plaintiffs may sue under

California’s wrongful death statute despite the presence of issue. “Regardless of their status as

heirs, parents may sue for the wrongful death of their child ‘if they were dependent on the

decedent.’” Chavez, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1440 (quoting Code Civ. Pro. § 377.60(b)); see also

Foster v. City of Fresno, 392 F.Supp.2d 1140, 1146 (E.D. Cal. 2005). “Dependence” refers to

financial rather than emotional dependency and a parent must show that they were actually

dependent, to some extent, upon the decedent for the necessities of life. Foster, 392 F.Supp.2d

at 1146; Chavez, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1445. The complaint contains no allegations that Parent

Plaintiffs depended on Decedent for any of their necessities in life. Thus, Parent Plaintiffs

must be dismissed from the wrongful death cause of action.

If a complaint's allegations are insufficient to confer standing, courts generally dismiss

with leave to amend because “often a plaintiff will be able to amend its complaint to cure

standing deficiencies.” Byrd, 137 F.3d at 1131 (quoting United Union of Roofers v. Insurance

Corp. of America, 919 F.2d 1398, 1402 (9 Cir. 1990)). Because it may be possible for Parent th

Case 1:07-cv-00651-AWI -TAG Document 22 Filed 07/27/07 Page 6 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Under California Civil Code § 3294(d), it is possible that punitive damages may be 1

available to the survivors of homicide victims in instances where the homicide resulted in the

defendant's conviction of a felony. See Shore v. Gurnett, 122 Cal.App.4th 166, 175 (2004). As

Defendant was not convicted of a felony, this possible exception clearly does not apply.

7

Plaintiffs to add sufficient allegations to give them standing for a wrongful death claim, the court

will dismiss Parent Plaintiffs with leave to amend the complaint to allege financial dependance

on Decedent. Parent Plaintiffs are advised that any amended complaint that includes such claims

must be based upon a well-founded belief that a cognizable or arguable legal theory exists that

would support a wrongful death action by Parent Plaintiffs. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

B. Punitive Damages

 Defendant moves to strike the complaint’s request for punitive damages. California law

bars the recovery of punitive damages in a wrongful death action. See, e.g., In re Paris Air Crash,

622 F.2d 1315, 1318 n.2 (9 Cir. 1980); Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 th

Cal.3d 425, 450 (1976); Rufo v. Simpson, 86 Cal.App.4th 573, 616 n.14 (2001); Ford Motor Co.

v. Superior Court, 120 Cal.App.3d 748, 751 (1981); Cortez v. Macias, 110 Cal.App.3d 640, 657

(1980). California Civil Procedure Code § 377.61 defines the damages available in a wrongful

death action as those that are just “under all the circumstances of the case,” but does not “include

damages recoverable under Section 377.34". Cal. Civ. Pro. Code § 377.61. California Civil

Procedure Code § 377.34 provides the damages in a survival action, and include damages “the

decedent sustained or incurred before death, including any penalties or punitive or exemplary

damages”. Cal. Civ. Pro. Code § 377.34. Because punitive damages are provided for under

California Civil Procedure Code § 377.34, they are not allowed in a wrongful death claim. 

1

Accordingly, the complaint’s request for punitive damages will be struck.

//

//

Case 1:07-cv-00651-AWI -TAG Document 22 Filed 07/27/07 Page 7 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 8

ORDER

Accordingly, based on the above memorandum opinion and order, the court ORDERS

that:

1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss and strike is GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff Nancy Mendoza and Plaintiff Johnny G. Provencio (“Parent Plaintiffs”)

are DISMISSED from this action with leave to file an amended complaint in

which they allege standing;

3. The request for punitive damages found in the complaint is HEREBY STRUCK;

4. Any amended complaint SHALL BE FILED within twenty days of this order’s

date of service.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00651-AWI -TAG Document 22 Filed 07/27/07 Page 8 of 8