Court Trial
alleged in the pleading to support such a claim." (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166.) " 'Malice' means conduct which is intended by the Defendant to cause injury to the Plaintiff ...." (Civ. Code, Sec. 3294, subd. (c)(1).) "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." (Clauson, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at p. 1255.) "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." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 3294, subd. (b).) "Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (b) does not authorize an award of punitive damages against an employer for [its] employee's wrongful conduct. It authorizes an award of punitive damages against an employer for the employer's own wrongful conduct.
Liability under subdivision (b) is vicarious only to the extent that the employer is liable for the actions of its officer, director or managing agent in hiring or controlling the offending employee, in ratifying the offense or in acting with oppression, fraud or malice." (Weeks v. Baker & McKenzie (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1154-1155.) "It is a generally accepted rule ...'[i]n order to state a cause of action against Defendant for a wrong committed by his servant, the ultimate fact necessary to be alleged is that the wrongful act was in legal effect committed by Defendant.
This may be alleged either by alleging that Defendant by his servant committed the act, or, without noticing the servant, by alleging that Defendant committed the act.' [Citations]." (C.R. v. Tenet Healthcare Corp. (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1112.) "In determining whether a complaint states facts sufficient to sustain punitive damages, the challenged allegations must be read in context with the other facts alleged in the complaint. Further, even though certain language pleads ultimate facts or conclusions of law, such language when read in context with the facts alleged as to Defendants' conduct may adequately plead the evil motive requisite to recovery of punitive damages." (Monge v.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Superior Court (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 503, 510 (Monge).) In Monge, supra, 176 Cal.App.3d at page 507, a demand for punitive damages was permitted where it was alleged that the Defendant employer's officers "engaged upon a systematic course of retaliation by 'creat[ing] an intimidating, hostile and offensive working environment ... in retaliation against the [p]laintiffs for their complaints regarding sexual harassment.' As a result of Defendants' conduct, [a Plaintiff], who was pregnant, was hospitalized for tension and emotional distress. [Another Plaintiff] ... suffered emotional distress and, eventually, [Plaintiffs] were 'forced to resign' because of the retaliatory actions by Defendants." (Ibid.)
The FAC alleges intent to injure Plaintiff as to first, third, and sixth through tenth COAs based on the theory of intentional retaliation and disability discrimination. Plaintiff alleges facts that he was terminated because he disclosed illegal Labor Code wage practices as part of his work duties and because he requested a day off from work because of a significant health issue. Plaintiff alleges facts that this intentional misconduct was authorized or ratified by Defendant's regional and national directors of human resources. (FAC, P.P. 9-13.)
This is sufficient to allege malice at the pleading stage. (Civ. Code, Sec. 3294, subd. (c)(1); see Monge, 176 Cal.App.3d at p. 507.) The motion to strike as to allegations in the second COA for violation of Labor Code section 6310 is moot since the demurrer is sustained as to this COA. Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion to strike. Tentative Ruling: Dian Gardner v James Paul Gardner, Lucas Ray Merrick, all persons unknown claiming any interest in the property Tentative Ruling: Dian Gardner v James Paul Gardner, Lucas Ray Merrick, all persons unknown claiming any interest in the property Case Number 25CV06959
Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/15/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Court Trial Tentative Ruling Plaintiff is represented by Nathan Rogers Defendant: no response, no appearance Issue Court Trial Tentative Ruling For the reasons set out below the Court GRANTS the relief sought in the Complaint as follows: 1. The real property at issue (hereafter, the "Property") is commonly referred to as 3400 Gibraltar Road, Santa Barbara, California 93105: and 2. Judgment is entered declaring the parties' rights with respect to ownership of the Property; and 3. Judgment is entered quieting fee simple title to the Property such that James Paul Gardner owns a 40% interest, Lucas Ray Merrick owns a 30% interest, and the Estate of Nancy A. Gardner owns a 30% interest.
4. Counsel for Plaintiff will submit a judgment consistent with this Ruling.
Analysis
On 11/5/25 the operative complaint was filed; 1 count; quiet title action. The real property at issue (hereafter, the "Property") is commonly referred to as 3400 Gibraltar Road, Santa Barbara, California 93105. Plaintiff prays: 1. For a judgment declaring the parties' rights with respect to ownership of the Property; 2. For judgment quieting fee simple title to the Property such that James Paul Gardner owns a 40% interest, Lucas Ray Merrick owns a 30% interest, and the Estate of Nancy A. Gardner owns a 30% interest.
On 12/2/25 a POS was filed showing the named Defendants were served. No response was filed. On 1/28/26 a default was entered against each of the Defendants. CMC On 2/24/26 Plaintiff filed a CMCS for the pending CMC of 3/11/26 and reported: This is an undisputed quiet title action brought by Plaintiff, Dian Gardner, naming her two brothers as nominal Defendants. Defendants intentionally defaulted because all parties agree to the relief being sought. Because default judgments are not permitted in quiet title actions, Plaintiff requests a short cause trial to testify as to the events set forth in the verified complaint.
Trial set On 3/11/26 the Court held a CMC; only Nathan Rogers, Attorney for Plaintiff (via Zoom), appeared. The Court set the case for trial on April 15, 2026, based upon the representations made in his CMCS. The Trial Dian Gardner Testified Observations of this Testimony Consistent with what was pleaded. The Court's Conclusions The matter shall go forward, and the Court expects to issue a ruling based upon the documents filed and the testimony given at the hearing. Tentative Ruling: Mechanics Bank v.
California Organic Fertilizers, Inc., et al.