Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02196/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02196-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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 1 06-CV-2196-B (PCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MORENO, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

USG CORPORATION, ET AL.,

Defendants.

_________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No: 06-CV-2196-B(PCL)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT

USG CORPORATION’S MOTION

TO STRIKE

I. INTRODUCTION

Before this Court is Defendant USG Corporations’s (“USG”) Motion to Strike filed

on November 13, 2006. (Doc. No. 6.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby:

(1) DENIES USG’s Motion to Strike punitive damages from the Complaint; and (2)

DENIES USG’s Motion to Strike “known defects in the hereinabove described material

forming machine” from paragraph 30 of the Complaint.

Case 3:06-cv-02196-DMS-PCL Document 26 Filed 03/19/07 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 2 06-CV-2196-B (PCL)

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Gilbert Moreno and his wife Angela Moreno filed the present suit on

October 4, 2006, alleging (1) negligence against USG and Defendant Coe Manufacturing

Company (“Coe”), (2) strict liability in tort against USG and Coe, and (3) loss of

consortium. (Doc. No. 1.) On November 13, 2006, Defendant USG filed the present

Motion to Strike. (Doc. No. 6.)

III. DISCUSSION

A. STANDARD OF LAW

1. Motion to strike

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that “the court may order stricken

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

scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(f). Under the express language of the rule, only

pleadings are subject to motions to strike. See Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697

F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983). “[T]he function of a 12(f) motion to strike is to avoid the

expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing

with those issues prior to trial . . .” Id.

Redundant matter “consists of allegations that constitute a needless repetition of

other averments in the pleading.” 5 CHARLES A. WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1382 (1990). Immaterial matter is “that which has no

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

Impertinent matter “consists of statements that do not pertain, and are not necessary, to the

issues in question.” Id. Scandalous matter is “that which improperly casts a derogatory

light on someone, most typically on a party to the action.” Id.

B. ANALYSIS

1. Punitive damages

USG moves to strike punitive damages from the Complaint. California Civil Code §

Case 3:06-cv-02196-DMS-PCL Document 26 Filed 03/19/07 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

1

 Paragraph 30 of the Complaint states in full:

Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and based thereupon alleges, that despite

having actual knowledge of the hereinabove described defects, defendants, USG

CORPORATION, and DOES I through XX, and each of them, intentionally and

recklessly failed to inform the public and consumers, including plaintiff, of the

known defects of the hereinabove described material forming machine, as herein

alleged. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, that at all times herein

mentioned, defendants, and each of them, acted with the intent of causing harm to

plaintiffs, and each of them, and in doing so, acted with a conscious disregard for

3 06-CV-2196-B (PCL)

3294 states in pertinent part regarding punitive damages:

 (a) In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract,

where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has

been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the

actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of

punishing the defendant.

(b) An employer shall not be liable for damages pursuant to subdivision (a),

based upon acts of an employee of the employer, unless the employer had

advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or

her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others or authorized

or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was

personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. With respect to a corporate

employer, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization,

ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an

officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation.

CAL. CIV. CODE § 3294 (West 1997).

If Plaintiffs are successful in demonstrating the elements of Section 3294, they may

be entitled to punitive damages. Since USG has not demonstrated that Plaintiffs’ pleadings

regarding punitive damages constitute “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous

matter” under Rule 12(f), the Court DENIES USG’s Motion to Strike punitive damages

from the Complaint.

2. Language within Paragraph 30 of Complaint stating that Plaintiffs

are entitled to damages due to “known defects of the hereinabove

described material forming machine”

USG moves to strike the language “known defects of the hereinabove described

material forming machine” from paragraph 301

 of the Complaint as immaterial matter not

Case 3:06-cv-02196-DMS-PCL Document 26 Filed 03/19/07 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

the life, health and safety to plaintiff, and further acted with despicably,

maliciously and oppressively, thereby entitling plaintiff to an award of punitive

and exemplary damages, all in an amount to be proven at time of trial.

(Doc. No. 1 at 8 - 9.)

4 06-CV-2196-B (PCL)

essential to the claim of Strict Liability in Tort against USG. 

As noted above, “advance knowledge” on the part of a “corporate employer” is

relevant to the issue of punitive damages. CAL. CIV. CODE § 3294(b) (West 1997). The

Court has already denied USG’s Motion to Strike punitive damages from the Complaint. 

Therefore, USG’s knowledge of defects in the material forming machine at issue is relevant

to Plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages, and the Court DENIES USG’s Motion to Strike

the language at issue in paragraph 30 of the Complaint.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby: (1) DENIES USG’s Motion to

Strike punitive damages from the Complaint; and (2) DENIES USG’s Motion to Strike

“known defects in the hereinabove described material forming machine” from paragraph 30

of the Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED

DATED: March 19, 2007

Hon. Rudi M. Brewster

United States Senior District Court Judge

cc: Hon. Peter C. Lewis

 United States Magistrate Judge

 All Counsel of Record

Case 3:06-cv-02196-DMS-PCL Document 26 Filed 03/19/07 Page 4 of 4