Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01574/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01574-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 310
Nature of Suit: Airplane Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Airline Crash

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NAIM I. AYAT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SOCIETE AIR FRANCE, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-01574 JSW

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS AND TO STRIKE

Now before the Court is the motion to dismiss and to strike filed by defendant Goodrich

Corporation (“Goodrich”). The Court finds that this matter is appropriate for disposition

without oral argument and it is hereby deemed submitted. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Accordingly,

the hearing set for April 13, 2007 is HEREBY VACATED. Having carefully considered the

parties’ arguments and relevant legal authority, the Court hereby grants Goodrich’s motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Naim I. Ayat (“Ayat”) filed this action against defendants Goodrich and Société

Air France arising from Ayat’s alleged injuries sustained when Air France Flight 358 crashed

off the end of a runway at Pearson International Airport in Canada. (Amend. Compl., ¶ 1.) 

Ayat was a passenger on Flight 358. (Id., ¶ 10.) Ayat alleges that Goodrich designed and

manufactured the airplane involved in the crash. (Id., ¶ 19.) As a result, Ayat asserts claims for

strict liability, breach of warranty, negligence, and punitive damages against Goodrich. (Id., ¶¶

17-35.) Goodrich moves to dismiss the breach of warranty claim and claim for punitive 

Case 3:06-cv-01574-JSW Document 75 Filed 04/11/07 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

damages and moves to strike the prayer for punitive damages pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(f).

ANALYSIS

A. Applicable Legal Standards.

A motion to dismiss is proper under Rule 12(b)(6) where the pleadings fail to state a

claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Motions to dismiss are

viewed with disfavor and are rarely granted. Hall v. City of Santa Barbara, 833 F.2d 1270 (9th

Cir. 1986). A complaint should not be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) “unless it appears beyond

doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him

to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). “A complaint may be dismissed for

one of two reasons: (1) lack of a cognizable theory or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable

legal claim.” Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 1984). On a

motion to dismiss, the complaint is construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving

party and all material allegations in the complaint are taken to be true. Sanders v. Kennedy, 794

F.2d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 1986). The court, however, is not required to accept legal conclusions

cast in the form of factual allegations, if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the

facts alleged. Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754-55 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing

Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)).

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

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

matter.” Immaterial matter “is that which has no essential or important relationship to the claim

for relief or the defenses being pleaded.” California Dept. of Toxic Substance Control v. ALCO

Pacific, Inc., 217 F. Supp. 2d 1028, 1032 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (internal citations and quotations

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

to the issues in question.” Id. Motions to strike are regarded with disfavor because they are

often used as delaying tactics and because of the limited importance of pleadings in federal

practice. Colaprico v. Sun Microsystems Inc., 758 F. Supp 1335, 1339 (N.D. Cal. 1991). The

possibility that issues will be unnecessarily complicated or that superfluous pleadings will cause

Case 3:06-cv-01574-JSW Document 75 Filed 04/11/07 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

the trier of fact to draw unwarranted inferences at trial is the type of prejudice that is sufficient

to support the granting of a motion to strike. Cal. Dept. of Toxic Substances Control, 217 F.

Supp. at 1028.

B. Goodrich’s Motion to Dismiss and to Strike.

1. Breach of Warranty Claim.

Goodrich moves to dismiss Ayat’s claim for breach of warranty based on his failure to

allege privity. “As a general rule, privity of contract is a required element of [a] ... breach of

warranty cause of action.” Fieldstone Co. v. Briggs Plumbing Products, Inc., 54 Cal. App. 4th

357, 369 (1997) (citing Burr v. Sherwin Williams Co., 42 Cal.2d 682, 695 (1954) (“The general

rule is that privity of contract is required in an action for breach of either express or implied

warranty and that there is no privity between the original seller and a subsequent purchaser who

is in no way a party to the original sale.”). There are several exceptions to the privity

requirement, including “cases involving foodstuffs” or in cases in which “the purchaser relied

on representations made by the manufacturer in labels or advertising material.” Burr, 42 Cal.2d

at 696. Thus, to state a claim for breach of express or implied warranty, a plaintiff must allege

privity or one of the recognized exceptions to the general rule. Margarita Cellars v. Pacific

Coast Packaging, Inc., 189 F.R.D. 575, 580 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (dismissing warranty claim based

on plaintiff’s failure to allege privity or a recognized exception).

Ayat’s reliance on LeBlanc Nutritions, Inc. v. Advanced Nutra LLC, 2005 WL 1398538

(E.D. Cal. 2005), for the proposition that a plaintiff need not allege privity to state a claim for

breach of warranty is misplaced. In Le Blanc, the district court denied the motion to dismiss

because it found that the plaintiff set forth facts in its complaint sufficient to allege privity. Id.,

2005 WL 1398538, *5. Thus, the court did not hold that privity was not a required element of a

breach of warranty claim.

In the instant action, Ayat does not contend that he has alleged facts which, if true,

would demonstrate privity or a recognized exception to the general rule. Nor, upon review of

Ayat’s amended complaint, did the Court find any facts alleged to satisfy this requirement. 

Accordingly, the Court grants Goodrich’s motion as to this claim. As a passenger on a flight, as

Case 3:06-cv-01574-JSW Document 75 Filed 04/11/07 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

opposed to being an alleged purchaser of any of Goodrich’s products, it does not appear likely

that Ayat could allege facts sufficient to satisfy the privity requirement or a recognized

exception. Nevertheless, the Court will dismiss this claim with leave to amend.

2. Punitive Damages Claim.

Next, Goodrich moves to dismiss Ayat’s claim for punitive damages on the grounds that

there is no cause of action for punitive damages under California law. Hilliard v. A. H. Robins

Co., 148 Cal. App. 3d 374, 391 (1983). “Punitive damages are merely incident to a cause of

action, and can never constitute the basis thereof.” Gold v. Los Angeles Democratic League, 49

Cal. App. 3d 365, 373 fn. 3 (1975) (citations omitted). 

Here, Ayat asserts a separate claim for punitive damages in his complaint. Because

there is no cause of action for punitive damages under California law, the Court grants

Goodrich’s motion to dismiss as to Ayat’s punitive damages claim.

Goodrich also moves to strike Ayat’s prayer for punitive damages because Ayat failed to

allege punitive damages under the corporate employer standard. Because “[c]orporations are

legal entities which do not have minds capable of recklessness, wickedness, or intent to injure

or deceive[, a]n award of punitive damages against a corporation therefore must rest on the

malice of the corporation’s employees.” Cruz v. HomeBase, 83 Cal. App. 4th 160, 167 (2000). 

Moreover, corporations are only liable for punitive damages if the corporate leaders acted with

the requisite intent. Id. (“the punitive damage statute requires proof of malice among corporate

leaders: the ‘officer[s], director[s], or managing agent[s].’”(citing Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b)). 

Without allegations of such conduct, courts have striken requests for punitive damages. 

Scannel v. County of Riverside, 152 Cal. App. 3d 596, 614 (1984) (striking allegations

pertaining to punitive damages where plaintiff failed to plead that acts of the defendant

corporation were done with knowledge or under the express ratification of an officer, director or

managing agent of the corporation); see also Xerox Corp. v. Far Western Graphics, Inc., 2004

WL 2271587, *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2004) (striking request for punitive damages based on

plaintiff’s failure to allege any conduct by defendant corporation’s officer, director or managing

agent).

Case 3:06-cv-01574-JSW Document 75 Filed 04/11/07 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Ayat did not allege any acts committed by Goodrich’s employees, let alone any by its

officers, directors or managing agents. Accordingly, the Court grants Goodrich’s motion to

strike Ayat’s prayer for punitive damages. The Court’s ruling as to punitive damages is without

prejudice to Ayat amending his complaint to state a claim with supporting allegations upon

which punitive damages may be awarded.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Goodrich’s motion to dismiss and to

strike, with leave to amend. Ayat shall have until May 11, 2007 to file a second amended

complaint in compliance with this order. Failure to amend shall result in the operative

complaint being the one on file, subject to the Court’s orders.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-01574-JSW Document 75 Filed 04/11/07 Page 5 of 5