Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01404/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01404-1/pdf.json

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

---

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 - 07cv1404

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRADLEY LEAR,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv1404 DMS (POR)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT

LOUISVILLE LADDER, INC’S

MOTION TO STRIKE

[Docket No. 9]

vs.

LOUISVILLE LADDER, INC, a Delaware

Corporation; et al.,

Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Louisville Ladder, Inc.’s motion to strike.

Defendant filed its motion on August 8, 2007, Plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion on August

21, 2007, and Defendant filed its reply on September 7, 2007. On September 14, 2007, the Court

found the motion suitable for decision without oral argument. For the reasons discussed below, the

Court denies Defendant’s motion to strike.

I.

DISCUSSION

Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s allegations and prayer for punitive damages. It argues

California law applies to this issue, and Plaintiff has not met the pleading standards set forth therein.

In response, Plaintiff asserts that federal law controls this issue, and he has met the federal pleading

requirements. 

/ / /

Case 3:07-cv-01404-DMS-RBB Document 23 Filed 10/09/07 Page 1 of 3
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 - 07cv1404

A. Standard of Review

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

redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). The function of Rule

12(f) is to “avoid the expenditure of time and money that must 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

(9th Cir. 1983). However, “[b]ecause of ‘the limited importance of pleadings in federal practice,’

motions to strike pursuant to Rule 12(f) are disfavored.” Estate of Migliaccio v. Midland National

Life Ins. Co., 436 F. Supp. 2d 1095, 1100 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (citing Bureerong v. Uvawas, 922 F. Supp.

1450, 1478 (C.D. Cal. 1996)). Courts disfavor motions to strike because they are “often used as

delaying tactics, and because of the policy disfavoring resolution on the merits” at the pleadings stage.

RDF Media Ltd. v. Fox Broadcasting Co., 372 F. Supp. 2d 556, 561 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (citing

Bureerong v. Uvawas, 922 F. Supp. 1450, 1478 (C.D. Cal. 1996)). Such motions are denied “if any

doubt exists whether the allegations in the pleadings might be relevant in the action.” Montecino v.

Spherion Corp., 427 F. Supp.2d 965, 967 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (citing In re 2TheMart.com Inc. Sec. Litig.,

114 F. Supp. 2d 955, 965 (C.D. Cal. 2000)).

B. Punitive Damages

California Civil Code Section 3294 permits recovery of punitive damages as follows: 

In an action for 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.

 Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a). Defendant correctly observes that California case law generally establishes

a heightened pleading standard to recover punitive damages under Section 3294. See, e.g., Smith v.

Superior Court, 10 Cal. App. 4th 1033, 1041-1042 (1992); Brousseau v. Jarrett, 73 Cal. App. 3d 864,

872 (1977) (“conclusory characterization of defendant’s conduct as intentional, willful and fraudulent

is a patently insufficient statement . . . [for] section 3294"); G.D. Searle & Co. v. Superior Court, 49

Cal. App. 3d 22, 28-29 (1975) (“certain tortious injuries demand firm allegations”). Defendant argues

Plaintiff has failed to meet that standard in this case. Rather, Defendant states Plaintiff has failed to

allege sufficient facts, and the facts alleged are too conclusory and general. 

Case 3:07-cv-01404-DMS-RBB Document 23 Filed 10/09/07 Page 2 of 3
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 - 07cv1404

However, Defendant’s reliance on California law is misplaced. The Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, not California law, govern the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s pleading. Rule 8 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure provides pleadings “shall contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Additionally, Rule 9 states

“[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other condition of mind of a person may be averred generally.” Fed.

R. Civ. P 9(b). This Rule does not require “any particularity in connection with an averment of intent,

knowledge or condition of the mind.” Clark v. Allstate Ins. Co., 106 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 1019 (S.D.

Cal. 2000) (quoting In re GlenFed, Inc. Sec. Litig., 42 F.3d 1541, 1547 (9th Cir. 1994) (en banc))

(emphasis in original). Rather, “[i]n federal court, a plaintiff may include a ‘short and plain’ prayer

for punitive damages that relies entirely on unsupported and conclusory averments of malice or

fraudulent intent.” Id.

Here, Plaintiff alleges, consistent with California Civil Code Section 3294, that Defendant

acted “in willful and conscious disregard for the safety of the public in general and for the safety of

plaintiff in particular,” and that Defendant is guilty of “malice, oppression, and fraud[.]” (Compl. at

6-7.) These allegations appropriately track the elements of Section 3294, and are consistent with

Rules 8(a) and 9(b). Thus, the challenged allegations and prayer are not “redundant, immaterial,

impertinent, or scandalous,” and will not be stricken. See Morris v. Parke, Davis & Co., 573 F.Supp.

1324, 1326 (C.D. Cal. 1983) (denying motion to strike prayer for punitive damages in product liability

case). 

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons set out above, Defendant’s motion to strike is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 9, 2007

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01404-DMS-RBB Document 23 Filed 10/09/07 Page 3 of 3