Tentative Ruling: Malkiat Mand v. Albertsons Companies, Inc
Case Number
25CV05696
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Wed, 04/08/2026 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
Motion of Defendant to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint
Tentative Ruling
For Plaintiff Malkiat Mand: Self-represented
For Defendant Albertsons LLC: Gregory E. Stone, Amy W. Lewis, Stone Dean LLP
RULING
The motion of Defendant Albertsons LLC is granted, with leave to amend, to strike paragraph 14a(2) from the complaint. Plaintiff Malkiat Mand shall file and serve his first amended complaint on or before April 23, 2026.
Background
As alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint in paragraph GN-1:
Defendant Albertsons LLC (Albertsons), sued as Albertsons Companies, Inc., owned and operated the Albertsons store located at 7127 Hollister Ave #27, Goleta, California (the Property).
On August 25, 2023, Plaintiff Malkiat Mand entered the Property at 7 a.m. to shop and went to the restroom. Because of the lack of signage indicating a wet floor, Mand slipped and fell, causing injuries to his foot, ankle, and shoulder.
Plaintiff exited the restroom to complain to management when a patron came from behind and punched Plaintiff in the right shoulder in an unprovoked attack. Plaintiff believes the instigation by a store clerk caused this patron to attack Plaintiff in a violent manner. Plaintiff also believes that employees of Albertsons made false statements in an attempt to conceal the crimes that occurred inside the Property.
On September 8, 2025, Mand filed his complaint in this action against Albertsons. The Judicial Council form complaint checks box 14a(2) of the prayer for relief seeking punitive damages. The complaint does not attach form PLD-PI-001(6) (Exemplary Damages Attachment).
On January 27, 2026, Albertsons filed this motion to strike the claim for punitive damages asserted by checking box 14a(2). The motion is opposed by Mand.
Analysis
“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).)
“In order to survive a motion to strike an allegation of punitive damages, the ultimate facts showing an entitlement to such relief must be pled by a Plaintiff. [Citations.] In passing on the correctness of a ruling on a motion to strike, judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth. [Citations.] In ruling on a motion to strike, Courts do not read allegations in isolation.” (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.)
Albertsons argues that Mand has failed to allege facts sufficient to assert a claim for punitive damages generally and also failed to allege facts sufficient to a claim for punitive damages against an entity employer.
“In an action for the 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.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).)
“ ‘Malice’ means conduct which is 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.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1).) “ ‘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’ 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)(3).)
“An employer shall not be liable for damages pursuant to subdivision (a), based upon acts of an employee of the employer, unless the employer had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. With respect to a corporate employer, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (b).)
In opposition to the motion, Mand argues that a number of facts demonstrate that the attack was deliberate and instigated by a managing agent of Albertsons. These facts, however, are not alleged in the complaint. The Court may not, and does not, evaluate facts asserted only in the opposition. (See CPF Agency Corp. v. R&S Towing (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1014, 1032 [in pleading challenge, the Court disregards facts extrinsic to the pleadings that are not subject to judicial notice].) Thus, the Court considers only facts that are alleged in the pleadings, not facts argued in opposition to a motion.
Moreover, Mand’s causes of action allege only negligence. (Complaint, ¶¶ GN-1, Prem.L-2 to Prem.L-4.) While nonintentional torts may, in a proper case, support punitive damages (see Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1299), the complaint must nonetheless allege facts demonstrating malice, oppression, or fraud, as defined in Civil Code section 3294. “The mere carelessness or ignorance of the Defendant does not justify the imposition of punitive damages.” (Tomaselli v. Transamerica Ins. Co. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1287, citation and internal quotation marks omitted.)
There are no facts now alleged in the complaint which support a claim for punitive damages. Consequently, Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages.
The motion to strike will be granted with leave to amend.
The Court also notes that Plaintiff’s memorandum in opposition is 20 pages long.
“Except in a summary judgment or summary adjudication motion, no opening or responding memorandum may exceed 15 pages. … No reply or closing memorandum may exceed 10 pages. The page limit does not include the caption page, the notice of motion and motion, exhibits, declarations, attachments, the table of contents, the table of authorities, or the proof of service.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(d) “A memorandum that exceeds 10 pages must include a table of contents and a table of authorities.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.113(f).)
Although the Court has the discretion to disregard the opposition because it exceeds the page limits (see Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.1110(g), 3.1300(d)), the Court will consider the opposition here. The parties are reminded of their obligation to follow all rules of Court, including rules regarding formatting and page limitations.