This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/08/2023 at 07:11:27 (UTC).

RICHARD JEROME HUTCHINS VS SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY HOUSING CORPORATION

Case Summary

On 07/02/2021 RICHARD JEROME HUTCHINS filed a Property - Other Property lawsuit against SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY HOUSING CORPORATION. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MICHAEL E. WHITAKER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******4571

  • Filing Date:

    07/02/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Property

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MICHAEL E. WHITAKER

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

HUTCHINS RICHARD JEROME

Cross Plaintiff and Defendant

SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY HOUSING CORPORATION

Cross Defendant

ROES 1 THROUGH 100 INCLUSIVE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

MOSLEY JEHRID S.

GOMEZ DARIO C.

Defendant Attorney

LEE TED M.

 

Court Documents

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

10/31/2022: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON MOTION TO STRIKE (NOT ANTI-SLAPP) - WITHOUT DEMURRER) OF 11/23/2021

11/23/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON MOTION TO STRIKE (NOT ANTI-SLAPP) - WITHOUT DEMURRER) OF 11/23/2021

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO STRIKE (NOT ANTI-SLAPP) - WITHOUT DEMURRER)

11/23/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO STRIKE (NOT ANTI-SLAPP) - WITHOUT DEMURRER)

Amended Complaint - AMENDED COMPLAINT (1ST)

12/13/2021: Amended Complaint - AMENDED COMPLAINT (1ST)

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AS TO DEFENDANT SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY HOUSING CORPORATION; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

1/13/2022: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AS TO DEFENDANT SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY HOUSING CORPORATION; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

Answer

2/2/2022: Answer

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

2/2/2022: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Summons - SUMMONS ON CROSS-COMPLAINT

2/2/2022: Summons - SUMMONS ON CROSS-COMPLAINT

Cross-Complaint

2/2/2022: Cross-Complaint

Demand for Jury Trial

2/2/2022: Demand for Jury Trial

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

9/6/2022: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING NOTICE OF LODGMENT OF EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY HOUSING CORPORATIONS MOTION TO STRIKE IMPROPER, IRRELEVANT AND NONCONFORMING MATTERS

10/1/2021: Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING NOTICE OF LODGMENT OF EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY HOUSING CORPORATIONS MOTION TO STRIKE IMPROPER, IRRELEVANT AND NONCONFORMING MATTERS

Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer

10/1/2021: Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF CHARLES F. NIKOLENKO, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY HOUSING CORPORATIONS GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT TO MEET AND CONFER WITH PLAINTIFF RICHARD JERO

8/27/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF CHARLES F. NIKOLENKO, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY HOUSING CORPORATIONS GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT TO MEET AND CONFER WITH PLAINTIFF RICHARD JERO

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [PI GENERAL ORDER], STANDING ORDER RE PI PROCEDURES AND HEARING DATE

7/12/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [PI GENERAL ORDER], STANDING ORDER RE PI PROCEDURES AND HEARING DATE

PI General Order

7/12/2021: PI General Order

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

7/13/2021: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Civil Case Cover Sheet

7/2/2021: Civil Case Cover Sheet

10 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/28/2024
  • Hearing06/28/2024 at 08:30 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/04/2023
  • Hearing10/04/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/19/2023
  • Hearing09/19/2023 at 10:00 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/31/2022
  • DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by: Ted M. Lee (Attorney)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/31/2022
  • DocketAddress for Ted M. Lee (Attorney) updated

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/06/2022
  • Docket[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Signed and Filed by: Single Room Occupancy Housing Corporation (Defendant); As to: Richard Jerome Hutchins (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/06/2022
  • DocketUpdated -- Event scheduled for 12/30/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 32 Type changed from Non-Jury Trial to Jury Trial

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/06/2022
  • DocketPursuant to written stipulation, Final Status Conference scheduled for 12/16/2022 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 32 Not Held - Continued - Stipulation was rescheduled to 09/19/2023 10:00 AM

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/06/2022
  • DocketPursuant to written stipulation, Jury Trial scheduled for 12/30/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 32 Not Held - Continued - Stipulation was rescheduled to 10/04/2023 08:30 AM

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/02/2022
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Single Room Occupancy Housing Corporation (Defendant); As to: Richard Jerome Hutchins (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
19 More Docket Entries
  • 07/12/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for [PI General Order], Standing Order re PI Procedures and Hearing Date; Filed by: Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/06/2021
  • DocketFinal Status Conference scheduled for 12/16/2022 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 32

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/06/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 12/30/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 32

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/06/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Dismissal scheduled for 06/28/2024 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 32

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/06/2021
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Michael E. Whitaker in Department 32 Spring Street Courthouse

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/02/2021
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Richard Jerome Hutchins (Plaintiff); As to: Single Room Occupancy Housing Corporation (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/02/2021
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Richard Jerome Hutchins (Plaintiff); As to: Single Room Occupancy Housing Corporation (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/02/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Richard Jerome Hutchins (Plaintiff); As to: Single Room Occupancy Housing Corporation (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/02/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Richard Jerome Hutchins (Plaintiff); As to: Single Room Occupancy Housing Corporation (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/02/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

b"

Case Number: *******4571 Hearing Date: November 23, 2021 Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE: Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached. If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit. The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling. If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar. If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged). Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.

TENTATIVE RULING

DEPARTMENT

32

HEARING DATE

November 23, 2021

CASE NUMBER

*******4571

MOTION

Motion to Strike Punitive Damages

MOVING PARTY

Defendant Single Room Occupancy Housing Corporation

OPPOSING PARTY

None

MOTION

Plaintiff Richard Jermoe Hutchins (“Plaintiff”) sued Defendant Single Room Occupancy Housing Corporation (“Defendant”) based on a slip and fall on property owned and controlled by Defendant. Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s claim and prayer for punitive damages in the complaint. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to 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, subd. (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).)

“[T]he imposition of punitive damages upon a corporation is based upon its own fault. It is not imposed vicariously by virtue of the fault of others.” (City Products Corp. v. Globe Indemnity Co. (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 31, 36.) “Corporations are legal entities which do not have minds capable of recklessness, wickedness, or intent to injure or deceive. An award of punitive damages against a corporation therefore must rest on the malice of the corporation’s employees. But the law does not impute every employee’s malice to the corporation. Instead, the punitive damages statute requires proof of malice among corporate leaders: the officers, directors, or managing agents.” (Cruz v. Home Base (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 160, 167 [cleaned up].)

Further, a plaintiff must assert facts with specificity to support a conclusion that a defendant acted with oppression, fraud or malice. To wit, there is a heightened pleading requirement regarding a claim for punitive damages. (See Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1041-1042.) “When nondeliberate injury is charged, allegations that the defendant’s conduct was wrongful, willful, wanton, reckless or unlawful do not support a claim for exemplary damages; such allegations do not charge malice. When a defendant must produce evidence in defense of an exemplary damage claim, fairness demands that he receive adequate notice of the kind of conduct charged against him.” (G. D. Searle & Co. v. Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 29 [cleaned up].) In Anschutz Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Snepp, the Court of Appeal noted that the plaintiffs’ assertions related to their claim for punitive damages were “insufficient to meet the specific pleading requirement.” (Anschutz Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Snepp (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 598, 643 [plaintiffs alleged “the conduct of Defendants was intentional, and done willfully, maliciously, with ill will towards Plaintiffs, and with conscious disregard for Plaintiff's rights. Plaintiff's injuries were exacerbated by the malicious conduct of Defendants. Defendants' conduct justifies an award of exemplary and punitive damages”]; see also Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166 [“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”].)

Here, Defendant argues Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to support a claim for punitive damages against Defendant. More specifically, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory and devoid of material facts demonstrating aggravating circumstances to support a punitive damages claim. The Court agrees. The Court finds Plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint lack factual specificity to support a conclusion that Defendant acted with oppression, fraud or malice. Moreover, the complaint lacks allegations of malice, oppression or fraud among Defendant’s officers, directors or managing agents.

Defendant also moves to strike Plaintiff’s name from section Prem. L-4: Count Three – Dangerous Condition of Public Property (“Count Three”). Defendant argues Plaintiff’s allegations under Count Three are false, improper, and irrelevant as Defendant is not a public entity. “The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 437, subd. (a).) As it does not appear from the face of the complaint that Defendant is not, in fact, a public entity, the Court cannot determine that Plaintiff’s allegations in Count Three are false, improper, or irrelevant.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants, in part, Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for and allegations related to punitive damages, and denies, in part, Defendant’s motion to strike Defendant’s name from Count Three of the complaint.

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.

"


related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY HOUSING CORP. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer LEE TED M. ESQ.