SLAUGHTER, vs STARBUCKS CORPORATION

26CV176852: SLAUGHTER, vs STARBUCKS CORPORATION, 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike DEFENDANT STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM; filed by Starbucks Corporation, (Defendant) CRS# 194180291668 in Department 20

Tentative Ruling - 09/01/2026 Thomas Eagle Weathers

The Motion to Strike (not initial pleading) DEFENDANT STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM FROM COMPLAINT filed by Starbucks Corporation, on 05/22/2026 is Denied.

Defendant Starbucks Corporation’s Motion to Strike is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Micah Slaughter, a minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem Monique Taylor, initiated this action on March 18, 2026 against Defendant Starbucks Corporation for negligence, premises liability, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring, supervision, and retention.

Plaintiff alleges that on August 29, 2026, he sustained severe burn injuries from a hot beverage at Defendant’s location on Solano Avenue in Berkeley. (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 10.) Plaintiff alleges that he suffered first and second degree burns to his right leg, with nerve pain, skin peeling, scarring, and emotional distress. (Id. ¶ 12.)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant knew or should have known that serving hot beverages at unreasonably dangerous temperatures in an unsafe and unstable container configuration created a substantial risk of serious burn injuries to customers. (Compl. ¶ 16.) Plaintiff further alleges that through its officers, directors, or managing agents, Defendant authorized, ratified, and/or knowingly permitted unsafe serving practices and acted with a conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiff, a minor. (Id.)

Defendant moves to strike Paragraphs 41, 76, 77, 79, and certain prayers for relief supporting Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages.

LEGAL STANDARD

The court may strike any “irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading,” or may strike out all or any part of a pleading “not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a rule of court, or an order of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) A claim for punitive damages requires “factual assertions supporting a conclusion [a defendant] acted with oppression, fraud, or malice.” (Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal. App. 4th 1033, 1042.)

A conscious disregard of the safety of others may constitute malice as contemplated under Civil 26CV176852: SLAUGHTER, vs STARBUCKS CORPORATION, 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike DEFENDANT STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM; filed by Starbucks Corporation, (Defendant) CRS# 194180291668 in Department 20 Code § 3294. (Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895.)

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code §§ 450, 452(d)(1).)

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends that the complaint lacks allegations of specific acts or circumstances of oppression, fraud, or malice on the part of Defendants. Defendant contends that the allegations in the Complaint are conclusory and general and fail to support punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294. (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166 [mere allegation of intentional tort insufficient for punitive damages and plaintiff must plead circumstances of oppression, fraud, or malice].)

For purposes of section 3294, malice does not require actual intent to harm, and the conscious disregard for the safety of another may be sufficient where the defendant is aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his or her conduct, and he or she willfully fails to avoid such consequences. (Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1299.)

The Complaint alleges that Defendant knew or should have known that its service of hot beverages at unreasonably dangerous temperatures in unsafe/unstable containers created a substantial, foreseeable risk of serious burns to customers such as Plaintiff. (Compl. ¶ 16.) The Complaint further alleges that Defendant failed to implement, enforce, and follow reasonable safety policies and safe serving practices where minor children are the foreseeable recipients of such beverages. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant “knowingly permitted such unsafe serving practices.” (Id.)

Taking these allegations as true and in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, they are sufficient to sustain a request for punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294 at this stage in the pleadings. Any further details may be obtained in discovery. (Doheny Park Terrace Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exch. (2005) 132 Cal. App. 4th 1076, 1099.)

CONCLUSION

Defendant Starbucks Corporation’s motion to strike is DENIED.

If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court.

HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING?

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV176852: SLAUGHTER, vs STARBUCKS CORPORATION, 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike DEFENDANT STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM; filed by Starbucks Corporation, (Defendant) CRS# 194180291668 in Department 20

THROUGH ECOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select "Search" 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select "Click to Contest this Ruling" 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select "Proceed" BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely.

BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.