Waryck v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 JAMES WARYCK & SANGAM Case No.: 22-cv-1096-L-KSC SHETH, 7 ORDER: Plaintiffs, 8 v. DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS 9 [ECF No. 30] THOR MOTOR COACH, INC.; MIKE 10 THOMPSON RECREATIONAL GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE 11 VEHICLES, SANTA FE SPRINGS; [ECF No. 31] RELIABLE DELIVERY SERVICES, 12 INC.; and DOES 1–20; 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Defendant Reliable Delivery Services, Inc.’s 16 (“Reliable Delivery”) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (ECF No. 17 30), and motion to strike, (ECF No. 31). Plaintiffs James Waryck and Sangam Sheth 18 (“Plaintiffs”) opposed, (ECF No. 32), and Reliable Delivery replied, (ECF No. 33). The 19 Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See Civ. L. 20 R. 7.1(d.1). For the reasons stated below, Reliable Delivery’s motion to dismiss is denied 21 and the motion to strike is granted. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 According to the operative amended complaint, Plaintiffs purchased a motor home, 24 the subject vehicle, on or about December 15, 2020, that has numerous manufacturing 25 defects. (ECF No. 25, at 4–5.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Thor Motor Coach, Inc. 26 (“Thor Motor”) and Mike Thompson Recreational Vehicles, Santa Fe Springs (“Mike 27 Thompson RV”) breached various warranties in violation of state and federal law arising 28 from the defects. (Id. at 6–16.) 1 Reliable Delivery operates a tow truck company that was hired to transport the 2 subject vehicle to an inspection being done in connection with the manufacturing defects 3 at issue. (Id. at 16.) During transport, Reliable Delivery crashed the subject vehicle into 4 an overpass. (Id. at 17.) Plaintiffs state the subject vehicle has been damaged beyond 5 repair and its structural integrity is in doubt. (Id.) Based on these facts Plaintiffs bring a 6 single negligence claim against Reliable Delivery. (Id. at 16.) 7 Thor Motor and Mike Thompson RV previously moved inter alia to sever the 8 negligence claim Reliable Delivery Services. (ECF No. 7.) This Court denied the 9 motion, finding that the negligence claim was properly joined under Federal Rule of Civil 10 Procedure 20 which requires that joined claims arise from the same transaction or 11 occurrence. (ECF No. 20.) Reliable Delivery now moves to dismiss the claim against 12 them pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter 13 jurisdiction. (ECF No. 30.) 14 II. MOTION TO DISMISS 15 Reliable Delivery moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s negligence claim specifically on the 16 grounds that this Court lacks supplemental subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1367. (ECF No. 30, at 4–5.) 18 A. Legal Standard 19 A district court that has original jurisdiction over a civil action “shall have 20 supplemental jurisdiction,” subject to express limitations not applicable here,1 “over all 21 other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction 22 that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). “Nonfederal 23 24 25 1 Limitations to § 1367(a) are found in subsections (b) and (c). Exclusions under subsection (b) only apply to diversity cases, see § 1367(b) (“In any civil action of which the district courts have original 26 jurisdiction founded solely on section 1332 of this title . . . .”), and dismissal under subsection (c) is discretionary rather than jurisdictional, Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 641 (2009) 27 (“When a district court remands claims to a state court after declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the remand order is not based on a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction for purposes of 28 1 claims are part of the same case as federal claims when they derive from a common 2 nucleus of operative fact and are such that a plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try 3 them in one judicial proceeding.” Trustees of Constr. Indus. & Laborers Health & 4 Welfare Tr. v. Desert Valley Landscape & Maint., Inc., 333 F.3d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 2003) 5 (internal quotations omitted). 6 B. Discussion 7 The Court has original federal question jurisdiction over the claims for breach of 8 warranty as they allege violations of federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The question 9 then is whether the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law 10 negligence claim. 11 “The requirement that the claims [joined under Rule 20] share a transaction or 12 occurrence certainly will satisfy § 1367(a).” 13D Charles Alan Wright & Arthur J. 13 Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3567.1 (3d ed. 2023); see also Exxon Mobil 14 Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 557–67 (2005) (holding the district court 15 had supplemental jurisdiction over claims brought by plaintiffs properly joined under 16 Rule 20 that did not satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity 17 jurisdiction); Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927, 935 (9th Cir. 2001) (“If there is 18 subject matter jurisdiction over [] one claim, there is supplemental jurisdiction over all 19 the other claims that are transactionally related.”). To be sure, the final sentence of 20 § 1367(a) provides that “[s]uch supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that 21 involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties.” 22 This Court previously held that “Reliable Delivery’s alleged negligence and Thor 23 Motor’s alleged breach of warranty are part of a series of occurrences that contributed to 24 the current condition of the subject vehicle,” and thus “Plaintiffs’ claims meet the 25 transaction or occurrence requirement” under Rule 20. (ECF No. 20, at 5.) It follows 26 that Plaintiffs’ claims also satisfy the common nucleus requirement for a grant of 27 supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367. Accordingly, this Court has supplemental 28 1 subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ negligence claim and Reliable Delivery’s 2 motion to remand is denied. 3 III. MOTION TO STRIKE 4 Reliable Delivery moves to strike Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages. (ECF 5 No. 31-1, at 4.) A Rule 12(f) motion to strike allows a court to “strike from a pleading an 6 insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” 7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Under California law, punitive damages are available in connection 8 with negligence claims “where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the 9 defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” Cal. Civ. Code. § 3294. 10 Reliable Delivery argues that Plaintiffs’ allegations are insufficient under California Civil 11 Code section 3294 to give rise to punitive damages. 12 As an initial matter, Reliable Delivery applies the wrong standard for evaluating 13 the sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages. “California Civil Code section 14 3294 ‘is a state procedural rule not implicated in federal court.’” Strojnik v. Braemar 15 P’ship, No. 19-CV-01446-BAS-AHG, 2020 WL 3250184, at *3 (S.D. Cal. June 16, 16 2020) (quoting Rees v. PNC Bank, N.A., 308 F.R.D. 266, 273 (N.D. Cal. 2015)). 17 Moreover, unlike section 3294, under the federal pleading standard “[m]alice, intent, 18 knowledge, and other conditions of a person’s mind may be alleged generally.” Fed. R. 19 Civ. P. 9(b). “Accordingly, in federal court, a plaintiff may include a short and plain 20 prayer for punitive damages that relies entirely on unsupported and conclusory averments 21 of malice or fraudulent intent.” Strojnik, 2020 WL 3250184, at *3 (quoting Rees, 308 22 F.R.D. at 273). 23 In the amended complaint, Plaintiffs allege that “Defendant [Reliable Delivery] 24 represented to Plaintiffs and Defendants that the Subject Vehicle needed to be returned to 25 the storage lot as the California Highway Patrol would not allow it to be towed on the 26 freeway. This was a false statement.” (ECF No. 25, at 17.) Plaintiffs make no other 27 allegations concerning Reliable Delivery’s intent or state of mind. Notably, Plaintiffs do 28 not allege that Reliable Delivery maliciously caused damage to the subject vehicle or 1 ||intentionally caused the crash. Merely alleging that Reliable Delivery made a false 2 statement after the fact is not enough to support a claim for punitive damages, even under 3 || the low pleading threshold of Rule 9. Reliable Delivery’s motion to strike is therefore 4 || granted. 5 ||IV. CONCLUSION 6 Reliable Delivery’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. Reliable Delivery’s motion to 7 strike is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages only as to Reliable 8 Delivery. Plaintiffs maintain their claim for punitive damages against all other 9 || Defendants. Reliable Delivery must file an answer to the amended complaint no later 10 || than July 7, 2023. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 Dated: June 23, 2023 15 H . James Lorenz, 6 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28