1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 PILAR CIRIZA EL CID GALE, AN Case No.: 24-CV-01355 W (KSC) INDIVIDUAL, 14 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S Plaintiff, 15 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS v. [DOC. 4] 16 UNIFI AVIATIONS, LLC, A 17 DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY 18 COMPANY, ET AL., 19 Defendants. 20 21 Pending before the Court is Defendant Unifi Aviation’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s 22 request for punitive damages. The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and 23 without oral argument. See CivLR 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons provided below, the Court 24 DENIES the motion [Doc. 4]. 25 26 I. BACKGROUND 27 Defendants are Prospect Airport Services, Inc., Prospect International Airport 28 Services, LLC, Prospect International Airport Services Corporation (collectively, 1 “Prospect”), and Hany Salib. (Opp’n. [Doc. 5] at 2:1-7.) Plaintiff is Pilar Ciriza El Cid 2 Gale. (Id.) 3 Plaintiff had a connecting flight in Dallas Ft. Worth International Airport (“DFW”) 4 to Madrid and retained Prospect to provide wheelchair transportation for her at the airport. 5 (Opp’n. at 2:18-20.) After waiting approximately twenty minutes, Plaintiff was met by 6 Salib, who was to push Plaintiff in the wheelchair to her destination. (Id. at 3:1.) As Plaintiff 7 attempted to sit in the wheelchair, Salib pushed down on the metal footrest causing injuries 8 to Plaintiff’s left leg. (Id. at 3:1-8.) Salib then took Plaintiff to meet with Rene Perez, 9 Prospect’s managing agent and Safety and Compliance Manager. (Id. at 3:23-25.) Perez 10 brought Plaintiff to the terminal building where she received care from paramedics. (Id. at 11 3:25-26.) Plaintiff then got on her connecting flight to Madrid. (Id. at 4:5.) 12 On July 31, 2024, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit for Negligence; Negligent Hiring, 13 Retention, Supervision, and Training; Breach of Contract; and Breach of Implied Covenant 14 of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. (Compl. [Doc. 1] at 1:13-19.) Plaintiff, also alleges that 15 the “acts of Defendants were oppressive, malicious, and despicable, and Plaintiff is, 16 therefore, entitled to an award of punitive damages against Defendants.” (Id. at 12:1-3.) 17 Defendants now move to dismiss Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages under 18 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (P&A [Doc. 4-1] at 2:17-19.) Defendants claim 19 that Plaintiff’s “Complaint is devoid of any allegations which would satisfy the 20 requirements of California Civil Code Section 3294(b) for an award of punitive damages 21 against a corporate entity.” (Id. at 3:18-20.) Thus, Defendants seek to dismiss Plaintiff’s 22 claims for punitive damages under 12(b)(6) for failing to state a plausible claim. (Id. at 23 3:25-28.) Because Rule 12(b)(6) does not apply to punitive damage challenges based on 24 factual insufficiencies, the Court will deny the motion. 25 26 II. LEGAL STANDARD 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a defendant to file a motion to 28 dismiss for failing “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 12(b)(6). A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the complaint’s sufficiency. See N. 2 Star Int’l v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n., 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir. 1983). To survive a motion 3 to dismiss, the allegations in the complaint “must be enough to raise a right to relief above 4 the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007). In 5 evaluating the motion, the court must assume the truth of all factual allegations and must 6 “construe them in light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Gompper v. VISX, Inc., 7 298 F.3d 893, 895 (9th Cir. 2002). 8 9 III. DISCUSSION 10 The “interpretation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure begins with the relevant 11 rule’s ‘plan meaning.’” Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 12 2010) (citing Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094, 1111 (9th Cir. 2002)). 13 By its very terms, Rule 12(b) pertains to defenses “to a claim for relief in any pleading” 14 and subsection (6) allows the filing of a motion for “failure to state a claim upon which 15 relief can be granted[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 16 “Punitive damages constitute a remedy, not a claim.” Oppenheimer v. Southwest 17 Airlines Co., 2013 WL 3149483, *3 (S.D. Cal. June 17, 2013) (citing Cohen v. Office 18 Depot, Inc., 184 F.3d 1292, 1297 (11th Cir. 1999) (overruled on other grounds)) (other 19 citations omitted). Additionally, the availability of punitive damages does not “control or 20 even pertain to the sufficiency of any claim.” Id. (citations omitted). Because a “12(b)(6) 21 motion to dismiss challenges the legal sufficiency of the pleadings, not the appropriateness 22 of the relief sought,” a motion to dismiss is not the proper mechanism to challenge a prayer 23 for punitive damages. Id. at 4 (citations omitted); see also United States v. Maricopa Cnty., 24 Ariz., 915 F. Supp. 2d 1073, 1082 (D. Ariz. 2012) (“A 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss 25 challenges the legal sufficiency of the pleadings, not the appropriateness of the relief 26 sought”); Andrawes v. Flora Media, Inc., 2018 WL 1942197, *2 (C.D. Cal. March 16, 27 2018) (“[B]ecause punitive damages are but a remedy, and thus neither constitutes a claim 28 nor pertains to whether any claim has been stated, requests for punitive damages provide 1 no basis for dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)”); Mata v. Digital Recognition 2 Network, Inc., 2022 WL 891433, *8 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2022) (“A growing number of 3 district courts have concluded that Rule 12(b)(6) is generally inapplicable to damage 4 prayers”); Murillo v. Godfrey, 2023 WL 2825701, *16 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2023) (“[A] 5 Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b) is not a proper mechanism to dismiss a prayer for 6 punitive damages or other relief”); Kevorkian v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 2023 WL 6612497, 7 *8 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2023) (citing Strum v. Rasmussen, 2019 WL 626167, *2-5 (S.D. Cal. 8 Feb. 14, 2019)) (other citations omitted) (“[F]inding prayer for punitive damages is a 9 remedy, not a claim within the meaning of Rule 12(b)(6).”). 10 In contrast to a challenge based on insufficient facts, a defendant may move to 11 dismiss a damage request under Rule 12(b)(6) when barred as a matter of law. In 12 Whittlestone, 618 F.3d 970, the defendant filed a Rule 12(f) motion to strike punitive 13 damages. Rule 12(f) allows a court to strike material that is: “(1) an insufficient defense; 14 (2) redundant; (3) immaterial; (4) impertinent; or (5) scandalous.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 PILAR CIRIZA EL CID GALE, AN Case No.: 24-CV-01355 W (KSC) INDIVIDUAL, 14 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S Plaintiff, 15 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS v. [DOC. 4] 16 UNIFI AVIATIONS, LLC, A 17 DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY 18 COMPANY, ET AL., 19 Defendants. 20 21 Pending before the Court is Defendant Unifi Aviation’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s 22 request for punitive damages. The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and 23 without oral argument. See CivLR 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons provided below, the Court 24 DENIES the motion [Doc. 4]. 25 26 I. BACKGROUND 27 Defendants are Prospect Airport Services, Inc., Prospect International Airport 28 Services, LLC, Prospect International Airport Services Corporation (collectively, 1 “Prospect”), and Hany Salib. (Opp’n. [Doc. 5] at 2:1-7.) Plaintiff is Pilar Ciriza El Cid 2 Gale. (Id.) 3 Plaintiff had a connecting flight in Dallas Ft. Worth International Airport (“DFW”) 4 to Madrid and retained Prospect to provide wheelchair transportation for her at the airport. 5 (Opp’n. at 2:18-20.) After waiting approximately twenty minutes, Plaintiff was met by 6 Salib, who was to push Plaintiff in the wheelchair to her destination. (Id. at 3:1.) As Plaintiff 7 attempted to sit in the wheelchair, Salib pushed down on the metal footrest causing injuries 8 to Plaintiff’s left leg. (Id. at 3:1-8.) Salib then took Plaintiff to meet with Rene Perez, 9 Prospect’s managing agent and Safety and Compliance Manager. (Id. at 3:23-25.) Perez 10 brought Plaintiff to the terminal building where she received care from paramedics. (Id. at 11 3:25-26.) Plaintiff then got on her connecting flight to Madrid. (Id. at 4:5.) 12 On July 31, 2024, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit for Negligence; Negligent Hiring, 13 Retention, Supervision, and Training; Breach of Contract; and Breach of Implied Covenant 14 of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. (Compl. [Doc. 1] at 1:13-19.) Plaintiff, also alleges that 15 the “acts of Defendants were oppressive, malicious, and despicable, and Plaintiff is, 16 therefore, entitled to an award of punitive damages against Defendants.” (Id. at 12:1-3.) 17 Defendants now move to dismiss Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages under 18 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (P&A [Doc. 4-1] at 2:17-19.) Defendants claim 19 that Plaintiff’s “Complaint is devoid of any allegations which would satisfy the 20 requirements of California Civil Code Section 3294(b) for an award of punitive damages 21 against a corporate entity.” (Id. at 3:18-20.) Thus, Defendants seek to dismiss Plaintiff’s 22 claims for punitive damages under 12(b)(6) for failing to state a plausible claim. (Id. at 23 3:25-28.) Because Rule 12(b)(6) does not apply to punitive damage challenges based on 24 factual insufficiencies, the Court will deny the motion. 25 26 II. LEGAL STANDARD 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a defendant to file a motion to 28 dismiss for failing “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 12(b)(6). A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the complaint’s sufficiency. See N. 2 Star Int’l v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n., 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir. 1983). To survive a motion 3 to dismiss, the allegations in the complaint “must be enough to raise a right to relief above 4 the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007). In 5 evaluating the motion, the court must assume the truth of all factual allegations and must 6 “construe them in light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Gompper v. VISX, Inc., 7 298 F.3d 893, 895 (9th Cir. 2002). 8 9 III. DISCUSSION 10 The “interpretation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure begins with the relevant 11 rule’s ‘plan meaning.’” Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 12 2010) (citing Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094, 1111 (9th Cir. 2002)). 13 By its very terms, Rule 12(b) pertains to defenses “to a claim for relief in any pleading” 14 and subsection (6) allows the filing of a motion for “failure to state a claim upon which 15 relief can be granted[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 16 “Punitive damages constitute a remedy, not a claim.” Oppenheimer v. Southwest 17 Airlines Co., 2013 WL 3149483, *3 (S.D. Cal. June 17, 2013) (citing Cohen v. Office 18 Depot, Inc., 184 F.3d 1292, 1297 (11th Cir. 1999) (overruled on other grounds)) (other 19 citations omitted). Additionally, the availability of punitive damages does not “control or 20 even pertain to the sufficiency of any claim.” Id. (citations omitted). Because a “12(b)(6) 21 motion to dismiss challenges the legal sufficiency of the pleadings, not the appropriateness 22 of the relief sought,” a motion to dismiss is not the proper mechanism to challenge a prayer 23 for punitive damages. Id. at 4 (citations omitted); see also United States v. Maricopa Cnty., 24 Ariz., 915 F. Supp. 2d 1073, 1082 (D. Ariz. 2012) (“A 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss 25 challenges the legal sufficiency of the pleadings, not the appropriateness of the relief 26 sought”); Andrawes v. Flora Media, Inc., 2018 WL 1942197, *2 (C.D. Cal. March 16, 27 2018) (“[B]ecause punitive damages are but a remedy, and thus neither constitutes a claim 28 nor pertains to whether any claim has been stated, requests for punitive damages provide 1 no basis for dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)”); Mata v. Digital Recognition 2 Network, Inc., 2022 WL 891433, *8 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2022) (“A growing number of 3 district courts have concluded that Rule 12(b)(6) is generally inapplicable to damage 4 prayers”); Murillo v. Godfrey, 2023 WL 2825701, *16 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2023) (“[A] 5 Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b) is not a proper mechanism to dismiss a prayer for 6 punitive damages or other relief”); Kevorkian v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 2023 WL 6612497, 7 *8 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2023) (citing Strum v. Rasmussen, 2019 WL 626167, *2-5 (S.D. Cal. 8 Feb. 14, 2019)) (other citations omitted) (“[F]inding prayer for punitive damages is a 9 remedy, not a claim within the meaning of Rule 12(b)(6).”). 10 In contrast to a challenge based on insufficient facts, a defendant may move to 11 dismiss a damage request under Rule 12(b)(6) when barred as a matter of law. In 12 Whittlestone, 618 F.3d 970, the defendant filed a Rule 12(f) motion to strike punitive 13 damages. Rule 12(f) allows a court to strike material that is: “(1) an insufficient defense; 14 (2) redundant; (3) immaterial; (4) impertinent; or (5) scandalous.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). 15 Despite these enumerated grounds, defendant’s motion sought to dismiss plaintiff’s request 16 for lost profits and consequential damages on the basis the damages were precluded as a 17 matter of law—a ground for granting a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, not a motion to strike. 18 Faced with this incongruity, the court held “that Rule 12(f) does not authorize district courts 19 to strike claims for damages on the ground that such claims are precluded as a matter of 20 law.” Id. at 974-75. Instead, the court explained that such challenges were “better suited 21 for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion or a Rule 56 motion….” Id. at 974. 22 Here, Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to adequately plead facts demonstrating 23 malice, not that punitive damages are barred as a matter of law. (P&A at 2:21-28). 24 Accordingly, Rule 12(b)(6) is the wrong procedural rule to challenge Plaintiff’s request for 25 punitive damages. 26 // 27 // 28 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to dismiss 3 ||[Doc. 4]. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: April 2, 2025 \
7 Hn. 1 omas J. Whelan 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28