Skip to main content.

Fraud Alert: Scam Text Messages Claiming DMV Penalties -

We have been made aware of fraudulent text messages being sent to individuals claiming to be from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) or the court system. These messages often state that the recipient owes penalties or fees related to traffic violations or DMV infractions and may include a link or phone number to resolve the matter. 

Take these steps to reduce the chances of falling victim to a text message scam:

  • Never respond to unsolicited or suspicious texts — If you receive a message asking for personal or financial information, do not reply.
  • Verify the source — If you are unsure, always contact the DMV through official channels.
  • Call the DMV if you have concerns — The DMV customer service team is available to help you at 800-777-0133.

Please see DMV warning about fraudulent texts: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/news-and-media/dmv-warns-of-fraudulent-te…

Jury Scam alert -

The Santa Barbara Superior Court has received complaints about individuals trying to scam members of the public by pretending to be court officers or officials. The Jury Services office of the Santa Barbara Superior Court does not call citizens to request payments for failing to appear for jury duty. California law does not permit citizens to pay a fine in lieu of jury duty. If you receive such a call simply hang up and, if the scammer persists, call your local law enforcement agency. Learn more about the recent scam warning.

Notice to Jurors:

Prospective jurors summoned for jury service can expect to receive their jury summons in postcard form. Please check your mail for a postcard with important instructions to fulfil your jury service. Visit the Jury Services page for more information.

Andre Farr v. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC, et al

Case Number

24CV00258

Case Type

Civil Law & Motion

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 05/29/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion of Defendant The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC to Strike Prayer for Punitive Damages and Related Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff Andre Farr: Self-Represented                                  

For Defendant The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC: Marc A. Trachtman, Mathew J. Vande Wydeven                                 

For Defendant Marriott International, Inc.: No appearance                              

For Defendant The Ritz-Carlton Bacara, Santa Barbara: No appearance

                                  

RULING

For the reasons set forth herein:

  1. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC’s motion to strike punitive damages is granted with leave to amend.
  2. Plaintiff shall serve and file his first amended complaint no later than June 14, 2024.

Background

This action commenced on January 17, 2024, by the filing of the Judicial Council Form Complaint by Plaintiff Andre Farr against Defendants The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC (“RCHC”), Marriott International, Inc., and The Ritz-Carlton Bacara, Santa Barbara. The complaint sets forth a single cause of action for premises liability.

As alleged in the complaint: On January 17, 2022, Plaintiff fell inside a hotel suite due to a pipe bursting in the ceiling. Plaintiff slipped and fell backwards injuring his knee, back, and ankle. Plaintiff alleges negligence and willful failure to warn. He seeks compensatory damages and punitive damages.

RCHC now seeks to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for damages and related portions of Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff was served via mail on April 17, 2024.

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or any other responsive document to the motion to strike.

Analysis

Motion to Strike

“The Court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) “Irrelevant matter” includes a “demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10, subds. (b)(3), (c).) “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).)

“[J]udges 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.)

“In order to state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a complaint must set forth the elements as stated in the general punitive damage statute, Civil Code section 3294. [Citation.] These statutory elements include allegations 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 Plaintiff, or despicable conduct that is carried on by the Defendant with a willful and conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others.’ ” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1); [Citation].) “ ‘ “Oppression” ’ means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.” (Civ. Code, § 3294 subd. (c)(2).) “ ‘ “Fraud” ’ ” is “ ‘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)(3).)” (Turman v. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.)

“The question is whether Defendants’ conduct may be characterized as “ ‘despicable.’ ‘Despicable conduct’ has been described as conduct which is “ ‘ “... so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people.” ’ ” [Citations.] “ ‘Such conduct has been described as ‘[having] the character of outrage frequently associated with crime.’ ” [Citation.] As well stated in Flyer’s Body Shop Profit Sharing Plan v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1149 . . .: “ ‘[A] breach of a fiduciary duty alone without malice, fraud or oppression does not permit an award of punitive damages. [Citation.] . . . Punitive damages are appropriate if the Defendant’s acts are reprehensible, fraudulent or in blatant violation of law or policy. The mere carelessness or ignorance of the Defendant does not justify the imposition of punitive damages. . .. 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.]” (American Airlines, Inc. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1050-1051.)

“In addition to the requirement that the operative complaint set forth the elements as stated in section 3294, it must include specific factual allegations showing that Defendant’s conduct was oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious to support a claim for punitive damages. (Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 872.)  Punitive damages may not be pleaded generally. (Ibid.)” (Today’s IV, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1137, 1193.)

Plaintiff has failed to include specific factual allegations showing that RCHC’s, or any other Defendants’, conduct was oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious. As such, the prayer for punitive damages is an “irrelevant matter” under the code and it will be stricken.

“Unless the complaint shows on its face that it is incapable of amendment, denial of leave to amend constitutes an abuse of discretion, irrespective of whether leave to amend is requested or not. Liberality in permitting amendment is the rule, not only where a complaint is defective as to form but also where it is deficient in substance, if a fair prior opportunity to correct the substantive defect has not been given. [Citation.] Similarly, a motion to strike paragraphs in a complaint should be granted with leave to amend where, as here, the defect, though one of substance, may possibly be cured by supplying omitted allegations, and the Plaintiff has not had a fair opportunity to do so. [Citation.]” (McDonald v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 297, 303-304.)

Plaintiff will be given leave to amend.

Was this helpful?

Yes No
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Was this helpful?