LIDIA MATISS VS CESAR MILAN, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******0285    Hearing Date: May 17, 2021    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE: Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Plaintiff Lidia Matiss (“Plaintiff”) sued Defendants Cesar Millan and Cesar’s Way, Inc. (“Defendant”) based on a dog attack. Plaintiff contends Defendants owned a dog that attacked Plaintiff. Defendants move to strike the prayer for punitive damages in the first amended complaint. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

ANALYSIS

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a motion to strike the whole pleading or any part thereof. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 435, subd. (b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1322(b).) On a motion to strike, the court may: (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 Civ. Proc., ; 436, subds. (a)-(b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782.)

In ruling on a motion to strike punitive damages, “judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth.” (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.) To state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a plaintiff must allege the elements set forth in the punitive damages statute, Civil Code section 3294. (College Hosp., Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 721.) Per Civil Code section 3294, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice. (Civ. Code, ; 3294, subd. (a).) “Malice is defined in the statute as conduct intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” (College Hosp., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 725.) “The mere allegation an intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages. Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim.” (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166, internal citations & footnotes omitted.)

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges:

• Mr. Millan knew that Junior was violent.

• Junior had bitten several people and mauled several dogs prior to biting Ms. Matiss.

• On one occasion, Dana Owens, who is popularly known as singer Queen Latifah, brought two of her dogs to Mr. Millan’s Dog Psychology Center (“DPC”) in Santa Clarita, California. At that facility, celebrities, like Ms. Owens, and other notable people bring their dogs to be trained by Mr. Millan and his staff. 13. At DPC, Junior mauled one of Ms. Owens’ dogs to death. Mr. Millan covered up Junior’s violence by instructing his staff to tell Ms. Owens and others that a car killed her dog.

• On information and belief, Mr. Millan knew that Junior had hurt many people and many dogs in the past.

(See First Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 10-14.) Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants knew their dog was dangerous, and nonetheless left their dog unsupervised around Plaintiff. (See First Amended Complaint, ¶ 18.) For pleading purposes, Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to show that Defendants acted with a willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and safety.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s claims and prayer for punitive damages, and orders Defendants are to answer the first amended complaint within 10 days of the hearing.

Defendants are ordered to provide notice of this order and file a proof of service of such.