Burgett vs Redwood Private Security

TENTATIVE RULING(S) FOR June 17, 2026 Department S37 – Judge Winston Keh This court follows California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(b) for tentative rulings. (See San Bernardino Superior Court Local Emergency Rule 8.) Tentative rulings for each law & motion will be posted on the internet (https://www.sb-court.org) by 3:00 p.m. on the court day immediately before the hearing.

You may appear in person at the hearing although remote appearance by CourtCall is preferred. (See www.sb-court.org/general-information/remote-access).

If you do not have Internet access or if you experience difficulty with the posted tentative ruling, you may obtain the tentative ruling by calling the department (S-37) at (909) 708-8707 or the Administrative Assistant (909) 708-8756, who prepared the ruling.

If you (or both parties) wish to submit on the Tentative, notify the other party and call the department by 4:00 pm the day before and your appearance may be excused unless the Court orders you to appear.

You must appear at the hearing if you are so directed by the court in the tentative ruling. Be prepared to address those issues set forth by the court in its ruling.

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE PREVAILING PARTY IS TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE

RULING.

Burgett vs Redwood Private Security

__________________________________________________________________________

TENTATIVE RULING(S):

Before the Court is Defendant Fortes’ Motion to Strike portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint, relating to

the allegations and prayers for punitive damages. Fortes specifically seeks to strike the following

on the grounds that the Complaint contains conclusions, not factual assertions sufficient to

establish oppression, fraud, or malice:

1) Plaintiff’s prayers for punitive damages as stated in the Complaint, page 8, numbers

1(c), 2(c), and 3(c), lines 1, 7, and 13, reference to “for punitive and/or exemplary

damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendant and deter others from

engaging in similar conduct.”

2) Complaint, page 3, para. 15, lines 24-27, reference to “Defendant JOHN DOE

aggressively approached Plaintiff, leaning forward and getting within inches of his

person, and in a loud bellicose manner threatened to touch and/or grab Plaintiff in a

harmful manner such that it reasonably appeared that Defendant JOHN DOE was

about to carry out the threat.”

3) Complaint, page 4, para. 19, lines 8-12, reference to “Defendant JOHN DOE’s

malicious and oppressive despicable conduct set forth above was intended to cause

injury to the Plaintiff and subjected the Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship with a

willful and conscious disregard for the Plaintiff’s rights and safety such that defendant

are subject to punitive damages as set forth in California Civil Code § 3294.”

4) Complaint, page 5, para. 25, lines 1-5, reference to “Defendant JOHN DOE’s

malicious and oppressive despicable conduct set forth above was intended to cause

injury to the Plaintiff and subjected the Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship with a

willful and conscious disregard for the Plaintiff’s rights and safety such that defendant

are subject to punitive damages as set forth in California Civil Code § 3294.”

5) Complaint, page 5, para. 31, lines 22-26, reference to “Defendant JOHN DOE’s

malicious and oppressive despicable conduct set forth above was intended to cause

injury to the Plaintiff and subjected the Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship with a

willful and conscious disregard for the Plaintiff’s rights and safety such that defendant

are subject to punitive damages as set forth in California Civil Code § 3294.”

Plaintiff opposes the motion to strike. Defendant replies to the opposition.

MERITS OF THE MOTION

Defendant Fortes argues that Plaintiff fails to plead “specific facts” rather than mere legal

conclusions and assumptions. He states the allegations in paragraphs 15, 19, 25, and 31 of the

Complaint do not satisfy the higher pleading requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section

3294. And he states that Plaintiff does not allege facts sufficient to show requisite “evil motive” to

support a punitive damages claim. Fortes thus seeks to strike out any irrelevant, false, or

improper matter inserted in the Complaint or strike out any part of the Complaint not drawn or

filed in conformity with the laws of this state. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subds. (a)-(b).)

Plaintiff, in turn, argues that punitive damages are sufficiently alleged in the Complaint.

This is because Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Fortes approached Plaintiff in his parked car and

demanded he exit; Plaintiff complied; Defendant Fortes immediately and violently assaulted

Plaintiff, causing injury; Defendant’s Fortes’ conduct was threatening, aggressive, and

outrageous, far beyond what is tolerated in a civilized community; and such conduct was both

despicable and carried out with a willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff

also relies on Perkins v. Superior Court (General Telephone Directory Company) (1981) 117

Cal.App.3d 1, 6-7 (“Perkins”), where the Court of Appeal held that a motion to strike conclusory

language in a punitive damages allegation must be denied, where read in context, the facts

alleged describe a malicious state of mind. The Perkins Court stated: “What is important is that

the complaint as a whole contain sufficient facts to apprise the defendant of the basis upon

which the plaintiff is seeking relief.” (Id., at p. 6.) And it also stated that: “The word ‘retaliation’ in

paragraph 10 of the complaint describes defendants’ motive for shutting off petitioner’s home

phone service -- a motive which, if proven, would sustain a finding of malice. The allegation that

defendants were guilty of ‘oppression, fraud, and malice’ simply pleaded a claim for punitive

damages in the language of the statute authorizing such damages. (Civ. Code, § 3294.)

Pleading in the language of the statute is not objectionable when sufficient facts are alleged to

support the allegation.” (Id., at pp. 6-7, emphasis added by Plaintiff and footnote omitted.)

In the reply, Fortes reiterates that Plaintiff’s conclusory statements are not sufficient to

support the claim for punitive damages. And he argues that to be legally sufficient, a complaint

seeking punitive damages must allege specific facts that manifest an evil motive on the part of

the defendant to injure the plaintiff.

Here, Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages is sufficiently supported by the allegations in

the Complaint as “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, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.)

There is no need at the pleading stage that Plaintiff prove by clear and convincing evidence that

Fortes is guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. He only needs to allege facts supporting the claim

(Monge, supra, 176 Cal.App.3d 503, 510; Perkins, supra, 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6-7), which Plaintiff

does by alleging that Fortes, acting within the course and scope of his employment with

Redwood, committed an unprovoked physical attack and assault against Plaintiff, causing

significant harm. Plaintiff is also alleging before contact, that Fortes threatened to touch and/or

grab Plaintiff in a harmful manner. These allegations, taken as true for purposes of this motion,

are more than sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages against Fortes. (See Compl., at

¶¶ 8, 9, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 31.) For example, “malice” means conduct which is

intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1).)

Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendant Fortes’ Motion to Strike because the allegations

in the Complaint are sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages at the pleading stage.