Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01192/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01192-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 46:1101 Violation of Maritime Regulations

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESUS GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14cv1192-WQH-JLB

ORDER

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;

NATIONAL STEEL AND

SHIPBUILDING COMPANY; and

OILKEEN, INC.,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended

Complaint for Failure to State a Claim for Punitive Damages (“Motion to Dismiss”),

filed by Defendant National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (“NASSCO”). (ECF No.

8).

I. Background

On May 12, 2014, Plaintiff Jesus Garcia initiated this action by filing a

Complaint in this Court. (ECF No. 1). On May 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed a First

Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 4). On May 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Second

Amended Complaint, which is the operative pleading. (ECF No. 7).

A. Allegations of the Second Amended Complaint

On March 11, 2013, Plaintiff’s employer, Ameri-Force Craft Services, Inc., and

Defendants NASSCO and Oilkeen, Inc. were providing repair services aboard the

United States Navy vessel USS San Diego, which was pierside in navigable waters at

Pier 4, Naval Station, San Diego, California. On March 11, 2013, Plaintiff, who was

- 1 - 14cv1192-WQH-JLB

Case 3:14-cv-01192-WQH-JLB Document 20 Filed 07/28/14 Page 1 of 4
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

working as a pipefitter aboard the USS San Diego, suffered severe and disabling

injuries when a pressurized hose and cam-lock flange failed and struck him in the head

during an oil flush/hydro test on an engine system. “Defendants negligently directed,

ordered, caused and allowed said hose and cam-lock flange to be pressurized in excess

of their rated limits which caused said hose and cam-lock flange to fail and strike

Plaintiff. Defendants negligently failed to intervene and stop said hose and cam-lock

flange from being pressurized beyond their rated limits, and this was a further cause of

Plaintiff’s accident.” Id. ¶ 9. As a result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff suffered

permanently-disabling injuries.

“Defendants NASSCO and Oilkeen, Inc. knowingly caused and allowed the

aforesaid hose and cam-lock flange to be pressurized above their rated limits in

conscious disregard of the safety of Plaintiff Jesus Garcia, therefore they are liable for

punitive damages.” Id. ¶ 16. The Complaint requests damages against all Defendants

and punitive damages against NASSCO and Oilkeen, Inc.

B. Motion to Dismiss

On June 12, 2014, NASSCO filed the Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 8). NASSCO contends that the Second

Amended Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to support Plaintiff’s claim for

punitive damages against NASSCO. NASSCO contends that the allegation that

NASSCO acted in conscious regard of Plaintiff’s safety is conclusory and insufficient

to state a claim for punitive damages. NASSCO requests that its Motion to Dismiss be

granted without leave to amend.

On July 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No.

15). Plaintiff contends that the Second Amended Complaint adequately alleges

Plaintiff’s entitlement to punitive damages, and “NASSCO is attempting to disguise a

summary judgment motion as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion even before discovery has

commenced.” Id. at 5. Plaintiff requests that the Motion to Dismiss be denied, or,

alternatively, that Plaintiff be granted leave to amend the Second Amended Complaint.

- 2 - 14cv1192-WQH-JLB

Case 3:14-cv-01192-WQH-JLB Document 20 Filed 07/28/14 Page 2 of 4
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

On July 14, 2014, NASSCO filed a reply brief. (ECF No. 18).

II. Standard of Review

Rule 12(b)(6) permits dismissal for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can

be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) provides

that “[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must contain ... a short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a)(2). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate where the complaint lacks a

cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory. See

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

“[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements

of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)

(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must

contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly,

550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable

for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citation omitted). “When there are well-pleaded

factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether

they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id. at 679.

III. Discussion

Pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294, a plaintiff may recover punitive

damages if the plaintiff proves that the defendant “has been guilty of oppression, fraud,

or malice.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a). “Malice” is defined as “despicable conduct

which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights

or safety of others.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(c)(1). “Oppression” is defined as

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

disregard of that person’s rights.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(c)(2).

- 3 - 14cv1192-WQH-JLB

Case 3:14-cv-01192-WQH-JLB Document 20 Filed 07/28/14 Page 3 of 4
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

“District courts in this circuit have disagreed over whether the pleading standards

[of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] may be used to dismiss a prayer for punitive

damages.” Hennighan v. Insphere Ins. Solutions, Inc., No. 13-CV-638-JST, 2013 WL

1758934, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2013) (citing cases and stating that “[t]his Court is

not persuaded that Twombly and Iqbal apply to claims for punitive damages”). The

Court does not decide the issue of whether federal pleading standards apply to a request

for punitive damages, because even considering the allegations supporting the request

for punitive damages under federal pleading standards, the Motion to Dismiss would

be denied. 

The Second Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff suffered permanentlydisabling injuries when a pressurized hose and cam-lock flange failed and struck him

in the head while he was working as a pipefitter aboard the USS San Diego. The

Second Amended Complaint alleges that the incident was caused by the hose and

cam-lock flange being pressurized in excess of their rated limits. The Second Amended

Complaint alleges that NASSCO “knowingly caused and allowed the ... hose and

cam-lock flange to be pressurized above their rated limits in conscious disregard of the

safety of Plaintiff Jesus Garcia, therefore they are liable for punitive damages.” (ECF

No. 7 ¶ 16). Under the pleading standards of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

“[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person’s mind may be alleged

generally.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). The Second Amended Complaint alleges sufficient

facts to support a request for punitive damages against NASSCO pursuant to California

Civil Code § 3294. The Motion to Dismiss is denied.

IV. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. (ECF No.

8).

DATED: July 28, 2014

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 4 - 14cv1192-WQH-JLB

Case 3:14-cv-01192-WQH-JLB Document 20 Filed 07/28/14 Page 4 of 4