Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/12/2021 at 17:52:18 (UTC).

ADRIANA DUARTE VALENTINES VS DEDICATION AND EVERLASTING LOVE TO ANIMALS

Case Summary

On 01/12/2021 ADRIANA DUARTE VALENTINES filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against DEDICATION AND EVERLASTING LOVE TO ANIMALS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is YOLANDA OROZCO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1322

  • Filing Date:

    01/12/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Wrongful Termination

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

YOLANDA OROZCO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

DUARTE VALENTINES ADRIANA

Defendant

DEDICATION AND EVERLASTING LOVE TO ANIMALS DBA D.E.L.T.A. RESCUE A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant Attorneys

FRANCISCO LEA PATRICIA L.

POMERANCE DREW

Other Attorneys

NALBANDYAN A. JACOB

 

Court Documents

Notice of Appearance - NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

5/26/2021: Notice of Appearance - NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

Case Management Order

5/12/2021: Case Management Order

Request for Refund / Order

4/28/2021: Request for Refund / Order

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

4/27/2021: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Case Management Statement

4/27/2021: Case Management Statement

Notice - NOTICE OF CMC

4/12/2021: Notice - NOTICE OF CMC

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT BY PLAINTIF...)

4/13/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT BY PLAINTIF...)

Reply - REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT

4/6/2021: Reply - REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT

Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service) - PROOF OF MAILING (SUBSTITUTED SERVICE) PROOF OF SERVICE

2/16/2021: Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service) - PROOF OF MAILING (SUBSTITUTED SERVICE) PROOF OF SERVICE

Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

3/9/2021: Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

Answer

3/9/2021: Answer

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

3/9/2021: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

3/30/2021: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

Civil Case Cover Sheet

1/12/2021: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint

1/12/2021: Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

1/12/2021: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

1/12/2021: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

Notice of Case Management Conference

1/13/2021: Notice of Case Management Conference

9 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/15/2022
  • Hearing08/15/2022 at 10:00 AM in Department 31 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2022
  • Hearing08/03/2022 at 09:00 AM in Department 31 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/26/2021
  • DocketNotice of Appearance (AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT); Filed by Dedication and Everlasting Love to Animals (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2021
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 31, Yolanda Orozco, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2021
  • DocketCase Management Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/28/2021
  • DocketRequest for Refund / Order; Filed by Dedication and Everlasting Love to Animals (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2021
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees (by Plaintiff); Filed by Adriana Duarte Valentines (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2021
  • DocketCase Management Statement (by Defendant); Filed by Dedication and Everlasting Love to Animals (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2021
  • DocketCase Management Statement (by Plaintiff); Filed by Adriana Duarte Valentines (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
5 More Docket Entries
  • 03/09/2021
  • DocketAnswer (to Complaint); Filed by Dedication and Everlasting Love to Animals (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2021
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees (by Defendant); Filed by Dedication and Everlasting Love to Animals (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2021
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by Dedication and Everlasting Love to Animals (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2021
  • DocketMotion by Defendant to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Complaint -[Res ID: _6432]; Filed by Dedication and Everlasting Love to Animals (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2021
  • DocketProof of Mailing (Substituted Service) (proof of service); Filed by Adriana Duarte Valentines (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2021
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Adriana Duarte Valentines (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2021
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Adriana Duarte Valentines (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Adriana Duarte Valentines (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 21STCV01322    Hearing Date: April 13, 2021    Dept: 31

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE IS DENIED.Background

On January 12, 2021, Plaintiff Adriana Duarte Valentines filed the instant action against Defendant Dedication and Everlasting Love to Animals dba D.E.L.T.A. Rescue and Does 1 through 20. The Complaint asserts causes of action for:

(1) Willful Misclassification;

(2) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages;

(3) Failure to Provide Rest Periods;

(4) Failure to Provide Meal Periods;

(5) Willful Failure to Pay Wages;

(6) Failure to Provide Itemized Wage Statements;

(7) Violation of Business & Professions Code § 17200;

(8) Failure to Grant Medical Leave in Violation of the California Family Rights Act;

(9) Failure to Reinstate in Violation of the California Family Rights Act;

(10) Denial of Medical Leave in Violation of the California Family Rights Act;

(11) Restraint of Medical Leave in Violation of the California Family Rights Act;

(12) Interference with Medical Leave in Violation of California Family Rights Act;

(13) Discrimination in Violation of the California Family Rights Act;

(14) Retaliation in Violation of the California Family Rights Act;

(15) Failure to Provide Medical Leave of Absence in Violation of Pregnancy Disability Leave Law;

(16) Failure to Reinstate in Violation of Pregnancy Disability Leave Law;

(17) Interference with, Restraint, and Denial of Medical Leave in Violation of the Pregnancy Disability Leave Law;

(18) Retaliation in Violation of Pregnancy Disability Leave Law;

(19) Sex and Gender Discrimination in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act;

(20) Disability Discrimination in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act;

(21) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act;

(22) Failure to Engage in a Good Faith Interactive Process in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act;

(23) Retaliation in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act;

(24) Failure to Prevent Discrimination in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act; and

(25) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy.

Defendant Dedication and Everlasting Love to Animals (hereinafter “Defendant”) now moves to strike allegations from the complaint related to punitive damages.

Legal Standard

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1322(b).) The court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion and upon terms it deems proper: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 436, subds. (a)-(b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782 [“Matter in a pleading which is not essential to the claim is surplusage; probative facts are surplusage and may be stricken out or disregarded”].)

Discussion

Defendant moves to strike allegations in the Complaint related to punitive damages.

Punitive Damages

Punitive damages may be imposed where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) “Malice” is conduct intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1).) Despicable conduct is “conduct which is so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people. Such conduct has been described as ‘having the character of outrage frequently associated with crime.’” (Tomaselli v. Transamerica Ins. Co. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1287.) “Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c).) “‘Punitive damages are proper only when the tortious conduct rises to levels of extreme indifference to the plaintiff’s rights, a level which decent citizens should not have to tolerate.’ [Citation.]” (Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1210.)

A motion to strike punitive damages is properly granted where a plaintiff does not state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, including allegations that defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud or malice. (Turman v. Turning Point of Cent. California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.) “Mere negligence, even gross negligence, is not sufficient to justify such an award” for punitive damages. (Kendall Yacht Corp. v. United California Bank (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 949, 958.)

For corporate punitive damages liability, section 3294, subdivision (b), the plaintiff must show that a managing agent, officer, or director of the corporation authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which punitive damages are sought. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (b); White v. Ultamar (1999) 21 Cal.4th 563, 572.) An individual must be in a corporate policymaking position in order to be considered a managing agent for the purposes of imposing punitive damages liability on the corporation. (Myers v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1437.) A “managing agent” includes “only those corporate employees who exercise substantial independent authority and judgment in their corporate decision-making so that their decisions ultimately determine corporate policy.” (White, supra, 21 Cal. 4th at p. 566.) While “supervisors who have broad discretionary powers and exercise substantial discretionary authority in the corporation could be managing agents,” those “supervisors who have no discretionary authority over decisions that ultimately determine corporate policy would not be considered managing agents even though they may have the ability to hire or fire other employees.” (Id.)

Defendant moves to strike allegations in the complaint related to punitive damages arguing that Plaintiff has failed to allege conduct that justifies an award of punitive damages. Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s allegations consist solely of conclusions of law without any specific facts regarding Defendant’s conduct apart from an unidentified person informing Plaintiff that her position had been filled. Defendant contends that additionally, Plaintiff fails to allege any facts regarding Defendant’s knowledge or ratification of another employee’s conduct.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that she has sufficiently alleged her claim for punitive damages, including that Defendant’s managing agent, officer, or director authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, including allegations that Defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. Here, Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff based on her pregnancy are sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages. (Cloud v. Casey (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 895, 911-912.) While Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s allegations regarding Defendant’s managing agents are unsupported by facts, Plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts; Plaintiff need not allege every evidentiary fact to support such an allegation. Moreover, any ambiguities may be cleared up during discovery.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to strike punitive damages is DENIED.

Conclusion

Defendant’s motion to strike punitive damages is DENIED.

Moving party is to give notice.

The parties are strongly encouraged to attend all scheduled hearings virtually or by audio. Effective July 20, 2020, all matters will be scheduled virtually and/or with audio through the Court’s LACourtConnect technology. The parties are strongly encouraged to use LACourtConnect for all their matters. All social distancing protocols will be observed at the Courthouse and in the courtrooms.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where DEDICATION AND EVERLASTING LOVE TO ANIMALS INC. DBA D.E.L.T.A. RESCUE; is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer NALBANDYAN A. JACOB