Cal. Civ. Code § 3294

Section 3294(a) permits punitive damages only when the defendant acts with oppression, fraud, or malice.

J.E.L. ex rel. Leon v. San Francisco Unified School District · filed 2016-05-12(a)

Under California Civil Code Section 3294, punitive damages are available only when the defendant has acted with “oppression, fraud, or malice.”

Section 3294(a) makes punitive damages available when a defendant acts with oppression, fraud, or malice.

City of San Jose v. Monsanto Co. · filed 2017-02-03(a)

Punitive damages are available when a defendant acts with “oppression, fraud, or malice.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a). Contrary to Monsanto’s assertion, punitive damages are available even if Monsanto did not specifically intend to cause harm to Oakland, Berkeley, and San Jose.

Section 3294(a) does not require an express award of actual or compensatory damages for punitive damages if the plaintiff suffered injury from a tortious act.

In re: Azizolah Javahery · filed 2017-03-14(a)

California Civil Code § 3294(a) authorizes punitive damages “in addition to the actual damages.” Carefully parsed, California decisional law does not require that there be an express award of actual damages to support an award of punitive damages, but rather that the plaintiff has suffered injuries from a tortious act, even if compensatory damages were not awarded.

Section 3294(a) permits punitive damages for a noncontractual obligation when clear and convincing evidence shows oppression, fraud, or malice.

Flynn v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2019-08-29(a)

Pursuant to California Civil Code section 3294, a plaintiff may recover punitive damages “[i]n an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a). ... Because the court has already determined that the Second Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges a claim for fraud, the court will deny the motion to dismiss the request for punitive damages.

Section 3294 requires clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice to recover punitive damages and defines those terms.

Great American Insurance Company v. Vasquez Marshall Architects · filed 2019-09-06(a), (c)(1)-(3)

To recover punitive damages in California, one must show by clear and convincing evidence “that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a). ... Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to support an inference of malice, oppression, or fraud on the part of Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently plead a claim to recover punitive damages but has raised facts in its opposition that suggest to the Court it should allow leave to amend. Therefore, Plaintiff's claim to recover punitive damages is dismissed with leave to amend to sufficiently plead malice, oppression, or fraud on the part of Defendants.

Section 3294 authorizes exemplary damages for a noncontractual breach when clear and convincing evidence establishes oppression, fraud, or malice.

Great American Insurance Company v. Vasquez Marshall Architects · filed 2019-11-05

California law authorizes exemplary damages “in an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice,” in addition to actual damages. Cal. Civ. Code § 3294.

Section 3294(a) authorizes punitive damages against those guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.

Attebury Grain LLC v. Cortez · filed 2020-02-21(a)

California law, which supplements the UVTA, see Cal. Civ. Code § 3439.12, authorizes punitive damages against those “guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a). California courts have thus held that punitive damages are available under the UVTA.

Section 3294(a) permits punitive damages in addition to actual damages when the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.

Terpin v. AT and T Inc · filed 2020-02-24(a)

By statute, where a plaintiff proves “by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover [punitive] damages.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a).

Section 3294(a) permits punitive damages only for conduct involving fraud, oppression, or malice, so negligence alone does not support them.

Chamberlin v. Hartog, Baer & Hand, APC · filed 2020-05-11(a)

Regardless of which rule applies, however, Christopher Chamberlin cannot recover punitive damages based solely on negligence. Because his only remaining claim is for negligent malpractice, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED with respect to the prayer for punitive damages, which is stricken and/or dismissed.

Section 3294(a) permits dismissal of a punitive-damages claim when the plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts showing oppression, fraud, or malice; conclusory allegations are insufficient.

Appel v. Boston National Title Agency, LLC · filed 2020-06-10(a)

When a plaintiff alleges a claim for punitive damages, a court may dismiss the claim if the plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to show “oppression, fraud, or malice.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a). It is insufficient when the plaintiff asserts “nothing more than conclusory allegations” of oppression, fraud, or malice. Kelley v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 750 F. Supp. 2d 1132, 1147 (E.D. Cal. 2010). Plaintiffs now state that Boston National’s Chief Compliance Officer, Keith Lewis, “acted maliciously” by refusing Plaintiffs’ repeated demands for the return of their funds” despite Boston National’s knowledge of the Fiji Property owners’ refusal to sell. (TAC ¶ 1.) Because Plaintiffs’ have sufficiently alleged fraudulent conduct and misrepresentation, as analyzed herein, the Court finds that whether Boston National’s actions (through Mr. Lewis) do in fact rise to a level that justifies punitive damages is an issue that must remain unresolved at this stage of the litigation.

Section 3294 permits punitive damages in an action for breach of an obligation not arising from contract when oppression, fraud, or malice is proven by clear and convincing evidence, and defines those terms.

Jittanoon v. Ketkaew · filed 2021-01-11

Here, Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages because Defendant’s breach of contract was tortious, given that Defendant embezzled Plaintiffs’ investment and made fraudulent representations to induce Plaintiffs to enter into the venture. In addition, Defendant’s conduct in seizing the LLC’s assets involved oppression, fraud, and malice within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code § 3294.

Section 3294 supplies California’s substantive law governing punitive damages, and a plaintiff must plausibly allege conduct warranting punishment under it.

Madrigal v. Performance Food Group, Inc. · filed 2021-04-05

Because this action is before the Court based on diversity jurisdiction, California Civil Code § 3294 provides the substantive law for punitive damages, but the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide the pleading standard. ... Even so, Mr. Madrigal does not otherwise plead a plausible claim for punitive damages. ... he does not state a claim for relief under FEHA, let alone allegations that suggest conduct warranting punishment under California Civil Code § 3294.

Section 3294(a) requires clear and convincing evidence to support punitive damages based on intentional malice or fraud.

In re: Maziyar James Khabushani · filed 2021-06-22(a)

For an award of punitive damages, clear and convincing evidence must be presented. Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a). But for determinations of nondischargeability and intentional discrimination, the elements need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 3294 permits punitive damages only on clear and convincing proof of oppression, fraud, or malice, and the court considers the defendants’ wealth when determining the award.

Greenlight Systems, LLC v. Breckenfelder · filed 2021-06-28

“The purpose of punitive damages is to punish wrongdoers” and deter wrongful acts. Neal v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 582 P.2d 980, 990, n.13 (Cal. 1978). Under California law, punitive damages are available only when the plaintiff can prove “by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294. Courts have significant discretion in awarding punitive damages and should consider three factors: “(1) the nature of defendants’ acts; (2) the amount of compensatory damages awarded; and (3) the wealth of the defendants.” See Pro. Seminar Consultants, Inc. v. Sino Am. Tech. Exch. Council, Inc., 727 F.2d 1470, 1473 (9th Cir. 1984) (citing Neal, 582 P.2d at 990). ... In this case, the first two factors are satisfied, because Counter-defendants committed fraud and the punitive damages are in a one to one ratio with the compensatory damages. See Helmer, 29 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 141 (granting punitive damages award where employer committed fraud to induce plaintiff to join company); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 425 (2003) (single digit ratios of compensatory to punitive damages “likely to comport with due process”). However, Mr. Breckenfelder has not met his burden of proving Counter-defendants’ wealth allows them to cover these damages. See Breckenfelder Decl. ¶ 11. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to award any punitive damages in the instant case.

Section 3294(c)(1) requires facts supporting that the defendant intended to injure the plaintiff or acted despicably with willful and conscious disregard of another’s rights or safety; conclusory allegations do not suffice.

Beckham v. Evanston Insurance Company · filed 2021-07-27(c)(1)

These allegations, however, do not plausibly support an inference that Evanston acted with an intent to cause Mr. Schneider injury, “willful and conscious disregard” for his safety, or engaged in “despicable conduct that subject[ed] [him] to cruel and unjust hardship[.]” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(c)(1)-(2). ... Hiring lawyers itself is not conduct that gives rise to punitive damages so Ms. Beckham must allege more that plausibly supports an inference that it was done for an improper purpose, as she conclusorily suggests.

Section 3294(a) permits punitive damages for a noncontractual obligation upon clear and convincing proof of oppression, fraud, or malice, and section 3294(c)(1) defines malice to include despicable conduct carried on with willful and conscious disregard of others’ rights or safety.

Jaco v. WinCo Holdings, Inc. · filed 2022-02-22(a), (c)(1)

Punitive damages may be recovered “[i]n an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a). “‘Malice’ means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(c)(1). ... Having reviewed the evidence presented by both parties on summary judgment, the court cannot conclude that no reasonable jury could find clear and convincing evidence that defendant acted with “willful and conscious disregard” of plaintiff's rights or inflicted “cruel and unjust hardship” upon her “in conscious disregard” of her rights. See Cal. Civ. Code. § 3294(c)(1)-(2). Rather, the court concludes that this case is an example of the typical case, “in which an assessment of whether Plaintiff's evidence can clear the high bar necessary to recover punitive damages must await the presentation of a full factual record at trial.” Rezvan, 2016 WL 8193160, at *11 (citing Spinks, 171 Cal. App. 4th at 1053).

Section 3294 permits punitive damages for conduct constituting malice, oppression, or fraud, and an alleged intentional misrepresentation causing harm can sufficiently support a punitive-damages claim.

(PC) Givens v. Tesluk · filed 2022-06-14

Section 3294 defines “Malice” as “conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294. Section 3294 defines “oppression” as “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.” Id. Section 3294 defines “fraud” as “an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.” Id. ... The intentional misrepresentation alleged by Plaintiff resulting in harm to Plaintiff is sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages.

Section 3294(a) permits a plaintiff to recover punitive damages in addition to actual damages when oppression, fraud, or malice is proven by clear and convincing evidence.

Modgeddi v. Walgreen CO. · filed 2022-07-07(a)

Punitive damages in this case are available under California Civil Code section 3294. (See Opp’n 11.) Section 3294 provides that, “where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a).

Section 3294(a) permits punitive damages for malicious, oppressive, or fraudulent conduct only when proven by clear and convincing evidence.

Skochko v. Mercy Housing, Inc. · filed 2022-08-15(a)

Under FEHA, punitive damages may be awarded if the defendant’s conduct is malicious, oppressive, or fraudulent, proven by clear and convincing evidence. Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a).

Section 3294 permits punitive damages for oppression, fraud, or malice, but not for a contract-only breach absent a tort and a proper showing.

Novalk, LLC v. Kinsale Insurance Company · filed 2022-12-09

Punitive damages are proper when the defendant is found guilty of oppression, fraud or malice. Cal. Civ. Code § 3294. Punitive damages are not available in an action based solely upon breach of a contractual obligation, even where the breach is intentional, willful, or in bad faith. Miller v. Nat’l Am. Life Ins. Co., 54 Cal.App.3d 331, 336 (1976) (citation omitted). However, if the action is also in tort, exemplary damages “may be recovered upon a proper showing of malice, fraud or oppression even though the tort incidentally involves a breach of contract.” Miller, 54 Cal.App.3d at 336, quoting Schroeder v. Auto Driveaway Co., 11 Cal.3d 908, 921 (1974).

Section 3294 requires a plaintiff seeking punitive damages to plead facts that plausibly support oppression, fraud, or malice committed by an officer, director, or managing agent, and those substantive requirements apply in federal court.

Ary v. Target Corporation · filed 2023-03-23(a)

But the Court “will apply the substantive law embodied in section 3294” even if “determinations regarding the adequacy of pleadings are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Jackson v. E. Bay Hosp., 980 F. Supp. 1341, 1353 (N.D. Cal. 1997). Thus, Plaintiffs must include allegations that raise a plausible inference of oppression, fraud, or malice committed by an officer, director, or managing agent as defined in Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a) in any amended complaint that seeks punitive damages.

Section 3294 permits punitive damages in a noncontract action only when the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with oppression, fraud, or malice.

Bard v. GSV Asset Management, LLC · filed 2023-06-29

Punitive damages may be awarded in an action not arising in contract only if the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. Cal. Civ. Code § 3294 (2017); Stewart v. Truck Ins. Exchange, 21 Cal. Rptr. 2d 338, 347 (Cal. 1993). Because the fraud claims are dismissed, it is necessary to dismiss the request for punitive damages as well.

Section 3294(a) permits punitive damages when clear and convincing evidence shows that an officer, director, or managing agent acted with oppression, fraud, or malice.

Mahil v. Option Care Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2022-04-15(a)

A plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages, “where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice” by “an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a)–(b).

Section 3294(a) permits punitive damages for a noncontractual obligation upon clear and convincing proof of oppression, fraud, or malice, while section 3294(b) limits an employer's liability for an employee's acts absent ratification or the employer's personal culpability.

Borrello v. Respironics California, LLC (P) · filed 2023-09-14(a), (b)

“In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover” punitive damages. Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a); Smith v. Superior Court, 10 Cal. App. 4th 1033, 1041 (1992). Employers are not liable for punitive damages “based upon acts of an employee of the employer, unless the employer . . . ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud or malice.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b). ... Defendants are correct that Borrello’s Complaint fails to specifically allege any actions by an employee warranting punitive damages which were ratified by any Defendant. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b). He also did not allege that Rocha personally engaged in any oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious behavior under section 3294. ... Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss Borrello’s claims for punitive damages from the Complaint, with leave to amend.

Section 3294(b) defines malice for punitive damages as either intent to injure or despicable conduct carried on with willful and conscious disregard of others’ rights or safety.

Vazquez v. DataRobot, Inc. · filed 2023-09-28(b)

“California Civil Code § 3294(a) allows for the recovery of punitive damages only where a plaintiff shows the defendant acted with malice, oppression, or fraud in connection with the tortious conduct at issue. Under § 3294(b), malice is defined as either: (1) conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or (2) ‘despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.’” ... To the extent that the claim for punitive damages is predicated on the discrimination claims, the court does not dismiss the claim at the pleadings stage.

Section 3294(a) requires clear and convincing evidence of malice, oppression, or fraud for punitive damages, and section 3294(b) limits corporate liability to specified conduct or managerial responsibility.

Rattie v. Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc. · filed 2023-11-22(a), (b)

To win punitive damages at summary judgment, a plaintiff must show malice, oppression, or fraud by clear and convincing evidence. Basich v. Allstate Ins. Co., 87 Cal. App. 4th 1112, 1121 (2001); see Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a). Rattie does not appear to dispute the “clear and convincing evidence” standard applies. A corporation will be liable for damages under § 3294(a) only where an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation had “advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee,” employed a person with a “conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others,” “authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct,” or was personally responsible for oppression, fraud, or malice. Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b). Since several of Rattie’s claims survive summary judgment, it would be premature, at this stage, to grant summary judgment on his punitive damages claim.

Section 3294(a) permits punitive damages against a corporation only when clear and convincing evidence shows oppression, fraud, or malice in addition to actual damages.

Osborn v. The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company · filed 2024-03-08(a)

In California, punitive damages against a corporation are available if there is “clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, [to the plaintiff in addition to the actual damages.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a). ... “Because the Court finds judgment should be granted on Plaintiff’s bad faith claim, Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages also fails.”

Section 3294 permits punitive damages upon clear and convincing proof of oppression, fraud, or malice, but a corporate defendant requires allegations that an officer, director, or managing agent committed or authorized that conduct.

Mohsen v. Veridian Credit Union · filed 2024-05-09(a), (b)

By statute, where a plaintiff proves “by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover [punitive] damages.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a). ... Therefore, Plaintiffs must plead that an officer, director, or managing agent of Defendants committed an act of oppression, fraud, or malice. ... Mohsen’s complaint does not contain any allegations that an officer, director or managing agent of Veridian committed an act of oppression, fraud or malice. ... Therefore, while Count VII will proceed, Mohsen’s request for punitive damages under Cal. Civ. Code § 3294 will be dismissed.

Section 3294 permits punitive damages in this type of action when the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.

Luis Martin Gonzalez Elias v. Integon Preferred Insurance Company · filed 2024-05-28

Under California law, punitive damages are available in this type of action if “the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice ….” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294.

Section 3294(a) permits punitive damages only upon clear and convincing proof that the defendant was guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, and a federal court applies the Federal Rules' pleading standards to such a claim.

Floyd v. Saber Fitness Hegenberger, LLC · filed 2024-06-11(a)

Punitive damages are also available under California law if a plaintiff proves “by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a). For punitive damages under both Floyd’s federal and state claims, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure set the pleading standards that must be met in federal court.

Section 3294 permits exemplary damages for malice, and a complaint sufficiently pleads malice by alleging a deliberate unlawful act committed to injure another.

Morgan v. French · filed 1945-09-19

Section 3294 of the Civil Code provides that a party may recover exemplary damages where the “defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, express or implied.” ... The complaint was thus complete in alleging the malicious acts on the part of the defendant which entitled plaintiffs to sue for exemplary damages under the code section.

Section 3294 permits a plaintiff to plead punitive damages, with their allowance and amount left to the jury's sole discretion.

Agnew v. Parks · filed 1959-08-10

Plaintiff’s claim to punitive damage is likewise properly pleaded (Civ. Code, § 3294) and although she prayed for $50,000, the allowance or disallowance (Clark v. McClurg, 215 Cal. 279 [4 P.2d 149, 9 P.2d 505, 81 A.L.R. 908]; Guillory v. Godfrey, 134 Cal.App.2d 628 [286 P.2d 474]) and amount (Hartzell v. Myall, 115 Cal.App.2d 670 [252 P.2d 676]; Browand v. Scott Lbr. Co., 125 Cal.App.2d 68 [269 P.2d 891]) thereof are reposed in the sole discretion of the jury.

Section 3294 requires a complaint seeking punitive damages to allege ultimate facts showing oppression, fraud, or malice; conclusory allegations of malice are insufficient.

Cyrus v. Haveson · filed 1976-12-27

To support punitive damages, the complaint asserting one of those causes of action must allege ultimate facts of the defendant’s ... oppression, fraud, or malice. (Civ. Code, § 3294.)

Section 3294 permits a punitive damages claim pleaded in terms of oppression, fraud, and malice when the complaint alleges facts supporting those terms.

Perkins v. Superior Court · filed 1981-03-17

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.

Section 3294 permits a punitive damages claim to survive demurrer when pleaded facts support an inference of conscious disregard for another’s rights.

SKF FARMS v. Superior Court · filed 1984-03-15

Petitioners have alleged, in the language of Civil Code section 3294, real parties are guilty of “fraud, oppression and malice.” Further, the complaint describes conduct on the part of real parties from which a “conscious disregard” for petitioners’ rights may be inferred. Thus, the allegations in petitioners’ complaint are sufficient to state a cause of action for punitive damages.

Section 3294 permits a plaintiff to plead punitive damages alongside statutory wiretapping penalties, but a plaintiff who prevails must elect between the awards after the verdict.

Clauson v. Superior Court · filed 1998-11-20

We agree with plaintiffs that they are entitled to seek in their second amended complaint both punitive damages for invasion of privacy and statutory wiretapping and eavesdropping penalties. ... Once the verdict is returned, plaintiffs, if they prevail, may then elect whether to accept the Penal Code section 637.2, subdivision (a) statutory penalties or the punitive damages award.

Section 3294(a) permits punitive damages for an insurer's refusal to defend when the complaint pleads specific facts showing oppression, fraud, or malice.

Hameid v. National Fire Ins. of Hartford · filed 2002-04-10(a)

If an insurer's refusal to defend was in conscious disregard of the rights of the insured, constituting fraud, oppression, or malice, (Civ.Code, § 3294, subd. (a)), punitive damages may be awarded. ... Plaintiff is required only to plead specific facts to show defendant's conduct was committed with one of the required mental states, i.e., oppression, fraud, or malice.

Section 3294 permits punitive damages allegations to proceed when the pleaded facts could support an inference of oppression through conscious disregard of the plaintiff’s rights.

Superior Dispatch, Inc. v. Insurance Corp. of New York · filed 2009-07-30(c)(2)

The facts alleged in the complaint adequately describe a conscious disregard for Superior's rights in connection with the making of the policy and the investigation and denial of its claim, from which the jury could infer "oppression." (Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 894 [157 Cal.Rptr. 693, 598 P.2d 854]; Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6-7 [172 Cal.Rptr. 427].) We express no opinion on Superior's ability to prove these allegations, because that question is not before us. The striking of the punitive damages allegations was error.

A complaint seeking punitive damages under section 3294 must allege facts showing malice, oppression, or fraud.

Turman v. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. · filed 2010-11-23(a)

However, as pled in this complaint, such facts do not rise to the level of malice, oppression or fraud necessary under Civil Code section 3294 to state a claim for punitive damages. Therefore, the punitive damages allegations should not be revived when the matter is reversed and remanded.

Section 3294 permits a punitive damages prayer to proceed when the plaintiff may amend the complaint to state an intentional tort claim supporting compensatory damages.

Prakashpalan v. Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack · filed 2014-02-11

Civil Code section 3294 authorizes an award of punitive damages where the deféndant has acted with “oppression, fraud, or malice.” “Malice” is described as “conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1).) A punitive damage claim depends upon a viable claim for compensatory damages for its vitality. (See McLaughlin v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1132, 1164 [29 Cal.Rptr.2d 559].) Here, because plaintiffs are permitted to amend their complaint to state claims for intentional torts upon which a claim for punitive damages may be based, the trial court erred in striking plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages.

Section 3294(a) requires facts supporting an award of punitive damages; an unsupported request is subject to dismissal.

Crosby v. County of Alameda · filed 2021-02-26(a)

Although, as noted above, plaintiffs’ claims against Henderson in her individual and/or official capacity are subject to dismissal, plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages, as alleged against Henderson, is, for the reasons stated by Moving Defendants, subject to dismissal on the additional ground that plaintiffs fail to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate such an award is appropriate.

Section 3294(a) requires allegations of specific acts supporting a request for punitive damages based on malice, fraud, or oppression.

R.N. v. Travis Unified School District · filed 2022-04-25(a)

As with their first amended complaint, plaintiffs do not include allegations of specific acts supporting their claim Mears acted “maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively” and so the court again grants defendants’ motion to dismiss, without leave to amend.

Section 3294(a) permits punitive damages for oppression, fraud, or malice proved by clear and convincing evidence; in federal court, malice need not be pleaded with particularity.

Bird v. Globus Medical, Inc. · filed 2020-08-19(a)

While plaintiffs ultimately must meet the substantive standard requiring “oppression, fraud, or malice” in order to obtain punitive damages, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure impose no requirement of particularity to support a claim of punitive damages based on malice at the pleading stage.

Section 3294(a) allows punitive damages for oppression, fraud, or malice; in federal court, malice need not be pleaded with particularity.

Bird v. Globus Medical, Inc. · filed 2020-09-08(a)

While plaintiffs ultimately must meet the substantive standard requiring “oppression, fraud, or malice” in order to obtain punitive damages, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure impose no requirement of particularity to support a claim of punitive damages based on malice at the pleading stage.

Section 3294 requires allegations of oppression, malice, or fraud to support a request for punitive damages against a corporate employer.

Dutch Girl Plaza LLC v. Marathon Petroleum Corporation · filed 2025-10-06(b)

Here, however, Plaintiffs do not even make the requisite “conclusory averments” of oppression, malice, or fraud. In fact, the complaint’s only mention of punitive damages comes in the prayer for relief, where Plaintiffs request a judgment “[f]or punitive damages and exemplary damages against all Defendants.” ECF No. 1 at 32. This fails to satisfy even the low bar necessary to plead a plausible entitlement to punitive damages and consequently will dismiss the request for punitive damages.

Section 3294 permits punitive damages for oppression, fraud, or malice; allegations of retaliatory eviction and related harassment can support a punitive damages claim at the pleading stage.

Kelly v. Denault · filed 2018-12-20(a)

California law provides for punitive damages where "the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice." Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a). ... These allegations are sufficient to support Plaintiffs' punitive damage claims at the pleading stage.

Section 3294(a) permits punitive damages for a tortious breach when the allegations support an inference of oppression, fraud, or malice.

Chalal · filed 2025-09-30(a)

A request for punitive damages is available when a claim is brought for breach of a tort obligation. Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a). ... Second, while Plaintiff does not directly allege Defendant acted with oppression, fraud, or malice, the Court finds the allegations allow for the inference that Defendant’s alleged delay in tendering payment and the resulting emotional and financial hardship allow for the inference that Defendant acted with “oppression.”

Section 3294 requires clear and convincing evidence of a statutorily defined ground, such as malice or oppression, for punitive damages.

Downey Venture v. LMI Ins. Co. · filed 1998-09-01(a)

Under Civil Code section 3294, a punitive damage recovery depends upon the satisfaction of a higher standard of proof (i.e., “clear and convincing” evidence) as to the existence of elements (e.g., “malice” and “oppression”) which are specifically defined by the statute.

Section 3294(a) permits nonsuit on punitive damages when no reasonable jury could find clear and convincing proof of malice, fraud or oppression.

Hoch v. Allied-Signal, Inc. · filed 1994-04-12(a)

Accordingly, we conclude a nonsuit on the issue of punitive damages is proper when no reasonable jury could find the plaintiff’s evidence to ... be clear and convincing proof of malice, fraud or oppression. On review of a nonsuit order, we apply the same standard.

Section 3294 imposes a clear and convincing evidence standard for awarding punitive damages.

Stewart v. Truck Insurance Exchange · filed 1993-07-23(a)

Beyond doubt, when the Legislature amended Civil Code section 3294 in 1987 to impose a “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard, it intended to impose a new statutory limitation on the award of punitive damages.

Section 3294 permits punitive damages only on clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice.

Kerr v. Rose · filed 1990-01-08

Civil Code section 3294 authorizes an award of punitive damages only where it is shown by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.

Section 3294(a) requires clear and convincing evidence of malice, oppression, or fraud before punitive damages may be recovered, and that evidentiary standard applies at every stage of litigation, including summary adjudication.

Adams v. Allstate Insurance · filed 2002-02-19(a)

Before a plaintiff may ever recover under a claim for punitive damages, he or she must first establish by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with malice, oppression or fraud. ... This higher clear and convincing evidentiary standard applies at every stage of the litigation process, including summary adjudication.

Section 3294 permits punitive damages when clear and convincing evidence establishes oppression, fraud, or malice; malice and fraud include the forms of conduct defined in subsection (c).

Sarofim v. Trust Co. of the West · filed 2006-02-08(a) (c)

While it is true that the panel did not use the exact language of section 3294, the evidence sufficiently supports, under our standard of review, a determination that the award satisfies the statute. ... Despite the absence of the specific terms, the panel’s award could be construed as finding “malice” or “fraud” by clear and convincing evidence as defined under section 3294.7 ... The award along with details in the record support an arbitral determination that TCW’s conduct satisfied the requirements of California’s punitive damages statute.

Section 3294(a) permits punitive damages when the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with fraud, oppression, or malice.

Henry v. Lehman Commercial Paper, Inc. · filed 2006-12-08(a)

Under California law, punitive damages are appropriate where a plaintiff establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is guilty of (1) fraud, (2) oppression or (3) malice.

Section 3294(a) requires a plaintiff seeking punitive damages to provide evidence that the defendant was guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.

Stewart v. Life Insurance Co. of North America · filed 2005-05-03(a)

Under the statute, Plaintiff is required to provide evidence that LINA was guilty of “oppression, fraud, or malice.”

Section 3294(a) permits punitive damages when fraud or malice is proven by clear and convincing evidence.

City of Carlsbad v. Shah · filed 2012-02-09(a)

The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that Shah is guilty of fraud and malice as defined by Cal. Civ. Code § 3294 and punitive damages are warranted.

Section 3294 permits punitive damages when the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with oppression, fraud, or malice, and supports considering the defendant’s wealth in setting the award.

Grace v. Apple, Inc. · filed 2020-01-15

In the instant case, Apple’s wealth, financial resources, and profit information are relevant because Plaintiffs seek punitive damages. ECF No. 36 at 35. Under California Civil Code § 3294, punitive damages are appropriate when a plaintiff proves by “clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294. California courts have held that in determining the appropriate level of punitive damages, one factor “to be considered is the wealth of the particular defendant; obviously, the function of deterrence will not be served if the wealth of the defendant allows him to absorb the award with little or no discomfort.”

Section 3294(a) permits punitive damages for negligence only upon clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice.

(PS) Schmitz v. Asman · filed 2020-11-16(a)

And before the court can permit the punitive damages request the plaintiff must establish a “substantial probability that [she] will prevail on the claim pursuant to Section 3294 of the Civil Code.” Id. Section 3294, in turn, permits recovery of punitive damages for negligence only where there is “clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a).

Section 3294(a) permits punitive damages upon clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice; under subsection (c)(1), malice requires despicable conduct carried on with willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.

Hardeman v. Monsanto Company · filed 2021-05-14(a), (c)(1)

Punitive damages are permissible under California law when there is “clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a). As relevant here, “malice” means “despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” § 3294(c)(1).

Section 3294(a) permits punitive damages for noncontractual obligations when oppression, fraud, or malice is proven by clear and convincing evidence.

Labbe' v. Dometic Corp. · filed 2022-03-22(a)

California law permits plaintiffs to recover punitive damages in actions “for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract” if they prove “by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a). ... Here, as described above, the complaint states a claim for fraud, and it is plausible that a jury could find fraud by clear and convincing evidence. It is also plausible that a jury could find malice by clear and convincing evidence. ... The court denies the motion to dismiss the punitive damages claims.

Section 3294(a) requires a plaintiff seeking punitive damages to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with oppression, fraud, or malice.

Pollock v. Federal Insurance Company · filed 2022-03-29(a)

To recover punitive damages, under California Civil Code § 3294, plaintiff must “prove[] by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a). ... Finally, Plaintiffs have included allegations in the Complaint that raise a plausible inference of malice and/or oppression. ... Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages is adequately alleged.

Section 3294(a) permits punitive damages in a tort action only when clear and convincing evidence shows oppression, fraud, or malice.

Kaur v. Boston Scientific Corporation · filed 2022-05-11(a)

Under California law, punitive damages are available in tort claims where it is proven by “‘clear and convincing’ evidence that the defendant is ‘guilty’ of ‘oppression, fraud, or malice[.]’” ... “Malice” is defined as “conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” ... For punitive damages in a product liability action, Plaintiff must provide evidence that “the Defendant placed a product on the market in a conscious disregard of the safety of consumers and others.”

Section 3294(a) permits punitive damages only when oppression, fraud, or malice is proven by clear and convincing evidence.

Melikov v. Ghilotti Bros., Inc. · filed 2022-05-16(a)

California Civil Code section 3294(a) permits an award of punitive damages “where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a).

Section 3294 requires a plaintiff seeking punitive damages to prove oppression, fraud, or malice by clear and convincing evidence.

Moriarty v. American General Life Insurance Company · filed 2022-07-26

Under California law, a plaintiff seeking punitive damages must prove “by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294. “To be clear and convincing, evidence must be sufficient to support a finding of high probability and it must be so clear as to leave no substantial doubt and sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind.”

Section 3294(a) permits punitive damages in an action for a noncontractual obligation only when oppression, fraud, or malice is proven by clear and convincing evidence.

Dr. Tarlochan Singh DDS Inc. v. Dell Computers · filed 2023-03-16(a)

California Civil Code § 3294 (“§ 3294”) provides that in an action “for breach of an obligation not arising from contract,” a plaintiff may seek punitive damages “where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a). ... Plaintiffs’ allegation is purely conclusory, in that it merely states a legal conclusion cast in the form of a factual allegation. ... Furthermore, because the Court finds Plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient facts to state a cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which requires pleading unreasonable or bad faith conduct, Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages is also insufficient. ... Accordingly, Plaintiffs fail to allege sufficient facts to show they are entitled to punitive damages.

Section 3294 requires a plaintiff seeking punitive damages to prove oppression, fraud, or malice by clear and convincing evidence, including at the summary-judgment stage.

Bernstein v. Kemper Independence Ins. Co. · filed 2023-04-25

“Although “[t]he same evidence is relevant both to the finding of bad faith and the imposition of punitive damages,” “the conduct required to award punitive damages for the tortious breach of contract is of a different dimension than that required to find bad faith.” ... “The standard for punitive damages is statutory. The California Civil Code provides that the plaintiff has to prove ‘by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.’” ... “This higher clear and convincing evidentiary standard applies at every stage of the litigation process, including summary adjudication,” and “thus, a plaintiff who is not able to survive summary judgment on an insurance bad faith claim[ ] is also unable to survive summary judgment on a related claim for punitive damages.”

Section 3294 requires clear and convincing proof of oppression, fraud, or malice for punitive damages, and defines oppression as despicable conduct causing cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of a person's rights.

Simmons v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. · filed 2023-08-15(c)(2)

The standard for punitive damages is statutory. The California Civil Code provides that Plaintiffs must prove “by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294. The statute defines “oppression” as “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.” Id. § 3294(c)(2). For the same reasons already discussed at length, the Court finds there are triable issues as to whether there was a genuine dispute and whether Defendant unreasonably delayed paying Simmons’s benefits in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights.

Section 3294(a) requires clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with malice, oppression, or fraud to recover punitive damages.

Leung v. UNUM Life Insurance Company of America · filed 2023-11-06(a)

Under California law, in order to recover punitive damages, the plaintiff must establish by “clear and convincing” evidence that the defendant acted with “malice,” “oppression” or “fraud.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a).

Section 3294(a) permits punitive damages only when oppression, fraud, or malice is proven by clear and convincing evidence.

Fernandez-Lawson v. National General Insurance Company · filed 2024-05-07(a)

A plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages “where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a). ... While Plaintiffs need not demonstrate punitive damages by “clear and convincing” evidence at summary judgment, “where the plaintiff's ultimate burden of proof will be by clear and convincing evidence, the higher standard of proof must be taken into account in ruling on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, since if a plaintiff is to prevail on a claim for punitive damages, it will be necessary that the evidence presented meet the higher evidentiary standard.”

Section 3294(a) permits punitive damages only when fraud, oppression, or malice is proved by clear and convincing evidence.

Ramsey v. Farmers New World Life Insurance Company · filed 2024-08-28(a)

The plaintiff must prove fraud, oppression, or malice by “clear and convincing evidence.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a).

Section 3294(a) requires a plaintiff seeking punitive damages under California law to prove oppression, fraud, or malice by clear and convincing evidence.

Johnson v. City of Santa Rosa · filed 2024-11-21(a)

Under California law, a plaintiff must prove “by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294 (a). ... Given these facts, a reasonable trier of fact could conclude Officer O’Neill acted with the requisite intent under both California and Federal law.

Section 3294(a)–(b) requires clear and convincing evidence of fraud, malice, or oppression and ratification by a corporate officer, director, or managing agent before punitive damages may be awarded.

Bansal v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2025-08-10(a)(b)

Moreover, punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence of fraud, malice, or oppression, ratified by a corporate officer, director, or managing agen Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a)(b); Tomaselli v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 25 Cal. App. 4th 1269, 1288 (1994).

Section 3294 does not support punitive damages where the evidence shows at most negligence rather than wilful and wanton conduct.

Colson v. Standard Oil Co. · filed 1976-07-27

After reading all of the testimony in this case and viewing the exhibits filed with the appeal we conclude Colson’s proof falls far short, as a matter of law, of meeting the above punitive damage requirements. At most his evidence only points to possible negligence on the part of Standard Oil (an issue conceded by it).

Section 3294 permits punitive damages for fraud proved by clear and convincing evidence.

Las Palmas Associates v. Las Palmas Center Associates · filed 1991-11-05(a)

At this juncture, we think it important to further note that substantial evidence supports the jury’s determination that an award of punitive damages was proper because buyers met their burden of proving fraud by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 3294(a) requires clear and convincing proof of oppression, fraud, or malice for punitive damages in a tort action.

Heller v. Pillsbury Madison & Sutro · filed 1996-11-19(a)

Moreover, the trial court correctly recognized that a punitive damages claim requires proof by “clear and convincing evidence.” Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (a) allows for punitive damages in a tort action “where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice . . . .”

Section 3294 permits punitive damages when clear and convincing evidence shows oppression, fraud, or malice; an insurer’s misleading claims practices and unreasonable delay can support such an award.

Campbell v. Cal-Gard Surety Services, Inc. · filed 1998-03-23(a)

There was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s punitive damages verdict and the trial court should not have granted the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. There was evidence that PAT engaged in despicable conduct and acted in conscious disregard of Campbell’s and other insureds’ rights.

Section 3294 permits punitive damages when evidence of a deliberate scheme to eliminate a junior lienholder’s security supports the underlying tort.

Webber v. Inland Empire Investments, Inc. · filed 1999-08-10

Here, there was ample evidence of a scheme to wipe out the junior lienholder, and that evidence supports the tort judgment against some of the defendants. The tort having been established, the same evidence supports a punitive damages award under Civil Code section 3294.

Section 3294’s clear-and-convincing burden must be considered when deciding a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication of a punitive damages claim.

American Airlines, Inc. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton · filed 2002-03-08(a)

However, where the plaintiff’s ultimate burden of proof will be by clear and convincing evidence, the higher standard of proof must be taken into account in ruling on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, since if a plaintiff is to prevail on a claim for punitive damages, it will be necessary that the evidence presented meet the higher evidentiary standard.

Section 3294(a) permits punitive damages when oppression, fraud, or malice is proved by clear and convincing evidence.

Henley v. Philip Morris Inc. · filed 2003-12-23(a)

The jury may award punitive damages "where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice." (Civ.Code, § 3294, subd. (a).)

Section 3294 requires clear and convincing evidence of fraud, oppression, or malice to support punitive damages; an unsupported allegation that an employer lacked a sexual harassment policy does not suffice.

Mathieu v. Norrell Corp. · filed 2004-02-19(a)

Moreover, even if we were to accept Mathieu’s legally unsupported contention that an employer’s failure to have a policy against sexual harassment could constitute oppression, fraud or malice, we agree with the trial court’s finding that Mathieu presented no evidence, let alone clear and convincing evidence, that Norrell (as opposed to Gulfstream) did not have a sexual harassment policy or that it refused to provide her with a copy of its policy.

Findings under section 3294(b), including an employer’s ratification of an employee’s conduct, require clear and convincing evidence.

Barton v. Alexander Hamilton Life Insurance · filed 2003-07-10(b)

Accordingly, a finding of ratification of Mr. McCall’s actions by Hamilton, and any other findings made under Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (b), must be made by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 3294 permits punitive damages on clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice; an appellant challenging the evidence must fairly present the evidence supporting the finding and show why it is insufficient.

Henley v. Philip Morris Inc. · filed 2004-04-28(a)

The jury may award punitive damages "where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice." (Civ.Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) ... Under this standard, however, defendant still bears the burden of fairly summarizing the evidence favoring the challenged finding and affirmatively demonstrating its insufficiency. (See Roemer v. Pappas, supra, 203 Cal.App.3d at p. 208, 249 Cal.Rptr. 743.) Defendant's presentation fails to fairly characterize the most damaging evidence or address its effect.

Section 3294(a) requires clear and convincing evidence of malice, oppression, or fraud to recover punitive damages.

Jordan v. Allstate Insurance · filed 2007-03-22(a)

Jordan, in order to recover punitive damages, must also demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Allstate acted with malice, oppression or fraud as these terms are used in Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (a) and have been construed and applied in relevant case law.

Section 3294 permits punitive damages for insurance bad faith when substantial evidence shows intentional dishonesty and conscious disregard of the insured’s rights.

Amerigraphics, Inc. v. Mercury Casualty Co. · filed 2010-03-23(a)

We have little trouble in this case concluding that there was more than substantial evidence to support an award of punitive damages. The evidence showed that Mercury was intentionally dishonest and showed a conscious disregard of Amerigraphics’s rights.

Section 3294(a) requires clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud or malice to obtain punitive damages.

Baker v. Castaldi · filed 2015-02-18(a)

To obtain punitive damages, a plaintiff must prove oppression, fraud or malice by “clear and convincing evidence,” not a mere preponderance of the evidence.

Section 3294(a)’s clear-and-convincing-evidence requirement applies at summary judgment or trial, not at the pleading stage.

Pennsylvania Transformer Technology, INC. v. Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company · filed 2023-03-08(a)

California Civil Code 3294(a)’s requirement of “clear and convincing evidence” is an evidentiary requirement applicable at the summary judgment or trial phase—making such a determination at this juncture is premature.

Section 3294 requires clear and convincing evidence of fraud for punitive damages, and evidence of an employer’s advance knowledge of an employee’s unfitness or ratification of the conduct for employer liability.

Barry v. Raskov · filed 1991-07-18(a), (b)

The trial court found, correctly, the evidence was not “clear and convincing” there was fraud on the part of Merritt or any other employee of Jefferson or on the part of Raskov. Furthermore, the evidence would not support a finding Jefferson knew Merritt was unfit as a property appraiser or ratified his conduct.

Section 3294(b) makes a corporate employer liable for punitive damages when an officer, director, or managing agent authorizes or ratifies oppression, fraud, or malice; managing-agent status turns on substantial discretionary authority over significant business decisions.

Lee v. Trw, Inc. · filed 2010-01-06(b)

Under California law, in order for a corporate employer to be liable for punitive damages, “an officer, director, or managing agent” must authorize or ratify the act of “oppression, fraud, or malice.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b). Whether an employee is a “managing agent” depends on the extent to which the employee exercises “substantial discretionary authority over decisions that ultimately determine corporate policy.” ... To establish that a person is a managing agent, a plaintiff must show “that the employee exercised substantial discretionary authority over significant aspects of a corporation’s business.” ... There is substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that Nakamura was a managing agent. Nakamura oversaw the entire EPO department. He exercised substantial discretion in upgrading and downgrading employee job levels, and in deciding whether and how to conduct layoffs. These types of decisions affect significant aspects of TRW’s business, and demonstrate that Nakamura was a managing agent.

Section 3294(b) permits punitive damages against an employer when a managing agent ratifies conduct constituting oppression, fraud, or malice.

Metropolitan Business Management v. Allstate Insurance Company · filed 2011-08-18(b)

In awarding MBM and Khaki punitive damages, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Allstate’s conduct constituted “‘oppression, fraud, or malice’” and that one of Allstate’s managing agents ratified that conduct. Cal. v. Altus Finance S.A., 540 F.3d 992, 1000 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a)); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b).

Section 3294(b) limits an employer’s liability for punitive damages to cases in which a managing agent authorized or ratified an employee’s oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious conduct.

Mitri v. Walgreen Co. · filed 2016-09-16(b)

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that a managing corporate agent ratified the wrongful employee conduct. ... see also Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b) (limiting employer liability for punitive damages to cases where a managing agent “authorized or ratified” an employee’s oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious conduct). ... Thus, with the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to Mitri, there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of ratification.

Section 3294 requires clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice by an employer’s officer, director, or managing agent, or ratification of such conduct, to support punitive damages against the employer.

Hukman v. Southwest Airlines Co. · filed 2019-08-22

To state a claim for punitive damages, Plaintiff must show, by clear and convincing evidence, that an officer, director, or managing agent of SWA acted with oppression, fraud, or malice, or ratified such conduct. Cal. Civ. Code § 3294; Basich v. Allstate Ins. Co., 87 Cal. App. 4th 1112, 1118-19 (2001). ... First, Plaintiff has offered no evidence that either Mr. Larimore or Ms. Williams Anderson are officers, managing agents, or directors of SWA.

For punitive damages based on an employee's act, a corporation is liable only if the employee was an officer, director, or managing agent; a managing agent must exercise substantial discretionary authority over decisions that determine corporate policy.

Fulfer v. WinCo Holdings, Inc. · filed 2019-10-25(b)

The law is clear that for punitive damages to be assessed against a corporate defendant for an act done by the corporation’s employee, said act “must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b). To qualify as a managing agent under this statute, a person must do more than supervise the terminated employee and have the authority to effectuate that employee’s firing. White v. Ultramar, Inc., 981 P.2d 944, 954 (Cal. 1999) (holding that a supervisor’s “supervision of plaintiff and her ability to fire him alone were insufficient to make her a managing agent”). Instead, “[t]he managing agent must be someone who exercises substantial discretionary authority over decisions that ultimately determine corporate policy.” Id. at 951.

Section 3294(b) requires a fact-specific showing that an employee’s conduct may be attributed to the employer before punitive damages can be imposed, including whether the employee was an officer, director, or managing agent.

Santiago v. Chipotle Services, LLC · filed 2020-02-18(b)

Defendant’s punitive damages arguments also fail. Defendant contends that it cannot be liable for Mitev’s actions because it has not been shown that she was Defendant’s officer, director, or managing agent. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b). That argument ignores evidence that Mitev’s termination decision was purportedly approved by Mitev’s superior, Patrick O’Ryan. Defendant has not offered any evidence regarding Mr. O’Ryan’s role in Defendant’s hierarchy, and thus questions remain for the jury as to whether his conduct can be attributed to Defendant for purposes of punitive damages.

An employer may be liable for punitive damages for an employee's acts if it authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.

Mettler v. Government Employees Insurance Company · filed 2020-04-15

Under California law, an employer may be liable for punitive damages based upon acts of an employee if the employer “authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294. ... Plaintiff points to actions that he believes GEICO performed improperly, but he has not provided any evidence that these actions were done with malice, oppression or fraud. ... Without this, Plaintiff has no claim of punitive damages. The Court GRANTS GEICO’s Motion for Summary Judgment to Plaintiff's punitive damages claim.

Section 3294(b) makes a corporation liable for punitive damages only when an officer, director, or managing agent committed, or had advance knowledge of and authorized, ratified, or consciously disregarded, an act of oppression, fraud, or malice.

Bonner v. Rite Aid Corp. · filed 2020-06-01(b)

Here, Plaintiff does not allege any facts to indicate that any of Defendant's officers, directors, or managing agents participated in the alleged defamation. Furthermore, Plaintiff's conclusory allegation that Defendant’s statements “were made intentionally, willfully, and maliciously” is insufficient to show malice. SAC 7 64. Therefore, Plaintiff's request for punitive damages under the Fourth COA is DISMISSED without leave to amend.

Section 3294(b) permits punitive damages against an employer for an employee's acts when the employer knowingly employs an unfit employee with conscious disregard, and for a corporate employer requires the relevant knowledge, disregard, authorization, ratification, oppression, fraud, or malice to come from an officer, director, or managing agent.

Estate of Gerardo Cruz-Sanchez v. United States of America · filed 2020-07-09(b)

An employer is subject to punitive damages for the acts of an employee where the employer knows the employee to be unfit and employs him “with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b). “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.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b). ... Thus, it is a question for the jury to decide whether the alleged policy that Defendant Landin followed was deliberately indifferent to Mr. Cruz-Sanchez’s medical needs. The alleged policy is a policy in place by Defendant CoreCivic and thus, satisfies the management requirement. If the alleged policy was deliberately indifferent to Mr. Cruz-Sanchez’s medical needs, then punitive damages may be awarded as determined by a jury.

Section 3294(b) limits a corporate employer’s punitive-damages liability for an employee’s conduct to specified misconduct involving an officer, director, or managing agent, including advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization or ratification, or personal oppression, fraud, or malice.

Rodriguez v. Comcast Inc. · filed 2020-07-30(b)

Under California law, an employer is not liable for punitive damages based upon the conduct of an employee unless the employer: (1) had advance knowledge of the employee’s unfitness and acted with “conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others;” (2) authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct; or (3) was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b). If the employer is a corporation, “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.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b). In order to qualify as an “officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation,” the California Supreme Court has held that the corporate decision maker must have “substantial discretionary authority over decisions that ultimately determine corporate policy.” White v. Ultramar, Inc., 21 Cal. 4th 563, 577 (1999). Merely having the power to hire and fire is not sufficient to establish that an employee is a “managing agent.” White, 21 Cal. 4th at 577.

Section 3294(a) requires employer punitive-damages liability to rest on specified malice, oppression, or fraud by an officer, director, or managing agent, proved by clear and convincing evidence.

Narayan v. Compass Group USA, Inc. · filed 2020-03-10(a)

Employer liability for punitive damages requires a showing of malice, oppression or fraud by an officer, director, or managing agent who had advance knowledge of, authorized, ratified, or was personally guilty of the malicious, oppressive of fraudulent conduct. Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a)-(b). Plaintiff bears the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that such conduct rising to the level of oppression, fraud or malice occurred.

Section 3294 permits exemplary damages when a corporation’s malicious or oppressive refusal to perform a noncontractual duty is shown through the acts of its managers.

Lowe v. Yolo Cty. Consol. Water Co. · filed 1910-03-30

The claim of defendant in this behalf is necessarily based on the further claim that certain evidence given of declarations made to plaintiff by both the general manager and the president of defendant must be disregarded, for that evidence taken in connection with the absolute refusal and failure to furnish any water amply warrants a conclusion of malice and oppression.

Section 3294 permits exemplary damages against a corporation for an employee’s malicious, fraudulent, or oppressive act when authorized or knowingly ratified by officials empowered to bind the corporation.

McInerney v. United Railroads of San Francisco · filed 1920-12-23

It is to be remembered that this appellant is a corporation, and while it is undoubtedly the law that a corporation may become liable in exemplary damages where an act of one of its employees, done in ill will or in actual malice or under circumstances of fraud or oppression, is done with the knowledge or under the express direction of its superior officials having power to bind the corporation, or, if done without such knowledge or direction, is thereafter ratified by such officials, with full knowledge as to the willful and malicious quality of such acts, no such conditions are presented by the evidence in the case at bar.

Section 3294 permits punitive damages against defendants who knowingly ratify an agent’s malicious or violent seizure by retaining its fruits.

Avakian v. Noble · filed 1898-06-15

It is not necessary to inquire whether the evidence was sufficient to justify an inference that the course pursued by Tripp was in pursuance of previous directions or authorization by defendants, since the evidence, while somewhat conflicting, clearly warranted the jury in finding that, with a full knowledge of all the circumstances attending the seizure of the raisins, they adopted and ratified the acts of Tripp by retaining and accepting the fruits thereof. Ratification under such crcumstances is equivalent to express precedent ■authority.

Section 3294(b) requires a plaintiff seeking punitive damages from a corporation to allege conduct involving an officer, director, or managing agent.

Appel v. Boston National Title Agency, LLC · filed 2019-08-15(b)

Further, to state a request for punitive damages against a corporation, a plaintiff must make allegations concerning an officer, director, or managing agent of that corporation. Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b). A company cannot “commit willful and malicious conduct—only an individual can.” Tawain Semiconductor Mfg. Co v Tela Innovations, Inc., No. 14-cv-362-BLF, 2014 WL 3705350, at *6 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2014).

Section 3294(b) requires a punitive-damages claim against a corporation to allege oppression, fraud, or malice and conduct performed or ratified by an officer, director, or managing agent.

Miller v. Big Heart Pet Brands, Inc. · filed 2020-03-16(b)

Big Heart argues that plaintiffs have failed to meet their requisite burden for punitive damages under the CLRA because they fail to allege “both ‘oppression, fraud, or malice’ and that the conduct at issue was performed or ratified by an ‘officer, director, or managing agent.” MTD 36-37 (quoting Graham v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 2:14-02916, 2017 WL 3783101, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2017)); see Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b). Plaintiffs do not address this argument in their opposition and instead contend that “a complaint is not subject to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) because the prayer seeks relief that is not recoverable as a matter of law.” Oppo. MTD 33 (quoting Monaco v. Liberty Life Assur. Co., No. C06-07021 MJJ, 2007 WL 420139, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2007)). While that may be true, plaintiffs are still required to adequately plead their request for punitive damages under the CLRA. See Young v. Cree, Inc., No. 17-CV-06252-YGR, 2018 WL 1710181, at *1,9 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2018) (plaintiff’s request for punitive damages under the CLRA dismissed, with leave to amend, because plaintiff failed to allege that “an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation . . . consciously disregarded, authorized, or ratified each act of oppression, fraud, or malice”). Big Heart’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s request for punitive damages is GRANTED with leave to amend.

Section 3294(b) requires corporate punitive damages to be based on oppression, fraud, or malice perpetrated, authorized, or knowingly ratified by an officer, director, or managing agent.

Harper Construction Company, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA · filed 2020-04-10(b)

However, this is not the only requirement under California law that must be met to qualify for punitive damages here. See, e.g., id. § 3294(b). A request for punitive damages against a corporation must include allegations relating to the corporation’s officers, directors, or managing agents. See id.

Section 3294(b) permits punitive damages against an employer only upon clear and convincing proof that an officer, director, or managing agent perpetrated or knowingly ratified malice, oppression, or fraud.

Wasche v. Orchard Hospital · filed 2020-08-21(b)

Under California law, the entitlement to punitive damages against an employer hinges on proof, by clear and convincing evidence, that an “officer, director, or managing agent” either perpetrated or knowingly ratified conduct amounting to malice, oppression, or fraud.

Section 3294 requires clear and convincing proof of oppression, fraud, or malice for punitive damages and, for corporate defendants, requires advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, or ratification by an officer, director, or managing agent.

Valero Refining Company California v. PG&E · filed 2020-10-27(a), (b), and (c)(1)

In order to pursue punitive damages against Defendant under California Civil Code § 3294(b) (“§ 3294”), Plaintiff must show “advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice . . . on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b). ... Taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in its favor, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff has adequately alleged violations of § 3294. Plaintiff expressly alleges Defendant’s directors and managing agents were aware of the dangerous consequences of their actions. Moreover, there is at the very least a reasonable inference that Defendant acted with a conscious disregard to a known risk by failing to train system operators on reading and interpreting “elementary electrical diagrams.”

Section 3294(b) permits punitive damages against an employer for an employee’s acts only when the employer authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct, was personally culpable, or, for a corporate employer, the requisite knowledge, authorization, ratification, or misconduct was attributable to an officer, director, or managing agent.

Collins v. Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Company · filed 2020-11-17(b)

Under California law, an employer may be liable for punitive damages based upon acts of an employee if the employer “authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b). Further, “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.” Id. ... Because Plaintiff has not provided clear and convincing evidence that the three managers acted “maliciously, oppressively, or fraudulently” or that Defendant had an established policy of consciously disregarding the rights of the insured, punitive damages is inappropriate.

Section 3294(a) permits punitive damages for fraud or malice, but a corporation is liable for such damages only when the required conduct or authorization is attributable to an officer, director, or managing agent.

Roper v. Big Heart Pet Brands, Inc. · filed 2020-12-30(a)

Where a plaintiff proves that the defendant has been guilty of fraud or malice, that plaintiff may recover punitive damages. Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a). However, “a corporate entity cannot commit willful and malicious conduct; instead, ‘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.’”

Section 3294(a) requires clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice for punitive damages, and section 3294(b) requires the relevant corporate employer conduct or authorization to be attributable to an officer, director, or managing agent.

Sanchez v. Loews Hotels Holding Corporation · filed 2021-02-08(a) (b)

A plaintiff may recover punitive damages where the defendant is shown “by clear and convincing evidence” to have acted with “oppression, fraud or malice.” Colucci v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 48 Cal. App. 5th 442, 450 (2020); Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a). “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.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b). Sanchez failed to address this claim in his opposition and the undisputed evidence indicates that none of the chefs or HR personnel were officers, directors, or managing agents of Loews. (Jt. Stmt. Undisputed Facts [Doc. 26-2] ¶¶ 81-82.) Further, there is no indication that any officers, directors, or managing agents consciously disregarded, authorized, or ratified any act of oppression, fraud or malice. Summary Judgment is granted as to punitive damages.

Section 3294(b) bars punitive damages against a corporate employer for an employee's acts unless an officer, director, or managing agent ratified the conduct or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.

O'Brien v. HII Ins. Solutions · filed 2021-03-19(b)

California law provides that “[a] corporate employer may not be held liable for punitive damages arising from the acts of an employee unless ‘an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation . . . ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.’” Taylor v. Trees, Inc., 58 F. Supp. 3d 1092, 1105 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (quoting Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b)). “Managing agents are those corporate employees who exercise substantial independent authority and judgment in their corporate decision-making so that their decisions ultimately determine corporate policy.” Id. (quoting White v. Ultramar, Inc., 21 Cal. 4th 563, 566–67 (1999) (internal quotations omitted)). “A plaintiff must demonstrate that an alleged managing agent exercises ‘substantial discretionary authority over significant aspects of a corporation’s business.’” Id. at 1106 (quoting White, 21 Cal. 4th at 577). Wrongful conduct is ratified when, “under the particular circumstances, the employer demonstrates an intent to adopt or approve oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious behavior by an employee in the performance of his job duties.” College Hosp. Inc. v. Superior Ct., 8 Cal.4th 704, 726 (1994). “Corporate ratification in the punitive damages context requires actual knowledge of the conduct and its outrageous nature.” Id. Here, the operative complaint includes only a conclusory statement that defendants “were authorized, ratified, approved, or directed by all of the other defendants.” FAC ¶ 9. Plaintiffs allege no facts suggesting Julio and Erica were “managing agents” and include no other information in their pleadings that might suggest defendants ratified the allegedly fraudulent conduct. The punitive damages claims are dismissed.

For corporate punitive damages, § 3294(b) requires the specified advance knowledge, authorization, ratification, or wrongful conduct to come from an officer, director, or managing agent.

Pizarro v. Astra Flooring Company · filed 2021-03-30(b)

Additionally, California imposes a heightened standard for plaintiffs seeking punitive damages from corporations: “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.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b). ... To summarize, plaintiffs must clearly and convincingly prove that a high-ranking member, or members, of Pep Boys had a hand in despicable conduct, consciously disregarding actions. Plaintiffs have shown that they can satisfy this burden through circumstantial evidence in admissible forms that Pep Boys does not oppose for lack of trustworthiness.

Section 3294(b) requires the relevant advance knowledge, conscious disregard, authorization, ratification, or oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious act for punitive damages against a corporation to be that of an officer, director, or managing agent.

Rothman v. Equinox Holdings, Inc. · filed 2021-04-27(b)

To support a claim for punitive damages against a corporate employer based on the acts of its employees, however, a plaintiff must plead “the corporation’s advance notification or ratification of the conduct” made “on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation.” ... Here, plaintiff does not plead sufficient facts to support an award of punitive damages because the FAC does not allege that “any individual committed willful and malicious conduct” or identify any officer, director or managing agent who was on advance notice or ratified such conduct.

Section 3294(a) requires clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice for punitive damages; subsection (b) requires qualifying conduct by a corporation's officer, director, or managing agent; and subsection (c) defines those terms.

Appel v. Boston National Title Agency, LLC · filed 2021-09-17(a), (b), (c)

To obtain punitive damages under California law, a plaintiff must establish “by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a). To maintain a claim for punitive damages against a corporation, a plaintiff must demonstrate oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious conduct on behalf of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b). ... Although such allegations may suffice at the pleading stage, Plaintiffs have provided no evidence that Mr. Lewis acted oppressively, fraudulently, or maliciously. See supra pages 13–15 (concluding that Plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact concerning Defendant’s fraudulent intent); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(c) (defining “malice,” “oppression,” and “fraud”). The Court therefore GRANTS Defendants summary adjudication as to Plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages.

Section 3294(a) authorizes punitive damages when the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.

Wallis v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. · filed 2022-03-30(a)

A corporate defendant is only liable for punitive damages if it had “advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice” came from “an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294. “[S]upervisors who have broad discretionary powers and exercise substantial discretionary authority in the corporation could be managing agents.” Wysinger, 157 Cal. App. 4th at 428; see also Major v. W. Home Ins. Co., 169 Cal. App. 4th 1197, 1221 (2009), as modified on denial of reh’g (Jan. 30, 2009) (“supervisors who have broad discretionary powers and exercise substantial discretionary authority in the corporation could be managing agents”). The Court concludes that Ochoa was such a supervisor and that he acted with malice in his harassment of Wallis.

Section 3294(b) makes an employer liable for punitive damages based on an employee’s acts only when the employer had advance knowledge and conscious disregard or authorized or ratified the conduct, and for a corporation the relevant conduct must be that of an officer, director, or managing agent; a managing agent exercises substantial independent authority and judgment in corporate decisionmaking so that the agent’s decisions ultimately determine corporate policy.

Elena v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company · filed 2022-04-20(b)

Cal. Civ. Code § 3294 governs the award of punitive damages: “An employer shall not be liable for damages . . . based upon acts of an employee of the employer, unless the employer had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him . . . with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded . . .” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b). For a corporate employer to be found liable for punitive damages, 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.” Id. The question then is whether Defendants ratified Wittig’s conduct and whether Wittig was a “managing agent” for the purposes of punitive damages. “Managing agents” are only those employees who “exercise substantial independent authority and judgment in their corporate decisionmaking so that their decisions ultimately determine corporate policy.” White v. Ultramar, Inc., 21 Cal.4th 563, 566-67 (1999). The scope of a corporate employee’s decisionmaking authority and discretion under this test is a question to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Id.

Section 3294(b) requires proof that the wrongful act giving rise to corporate punitive damages was committed by an officer, director, or managing agent.

Fraser v. Mint Mobile, LLC · filed 2022-04-27(b)

To establish corporate punitive damages liability, the plaintiff must prove “the wrongful act giving rise to the exemplary damages [were] committed by an ‘officer, director, or managing agent.”’ White v. Ultramar, Inc., 21 Cal. 4th 563, 572 (1999) (quoting Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b)).

Section 3294(a) permits punitive damages upon clear and convincing proof of oppression, fraud, or malice, and section 3294(b) requires the requisite corporate conduct to be attributable to an officer, director, or managing agent.

Oregon v. Boston Scientific Corporation · filed 2022-05-20(a), (b)

“Under California law, punitive damages require a showing by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant acted with oppression, fraud, or malice.” Dudgeon v. County of Sonoma, No. 19-cv-05615-JCS, 2021 WL 5407519, at *16 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2021) (citing Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a)). Where a plaintiff proves that the defendant has been guilty of fraud or malice, that plaintiff may recover punitive damages. Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a). However, “a corporate entity cannot commit willful and malicious conduct; instead, ‘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.’” In re Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 313 F. Supp. 3d 1113, 1147-48 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (emphasis added) (quoting Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b)); see also Taiwan Semiconductor Mfg. Co. v. Tela Innovations, Inc., No. 14-cv-00362-BLF, 2014 WL 3705350, at *6 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2014) (“[A] company simply cannot commit willful and malicious conduct––only an individual can.”) Here, plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that defendant or any of its employees or corporate leaders acted with oppression, fraud, or malice. See Fischer v. Bos. Sci. Corp., No. 2:19-cv-02106-JVS-DFM, 2020 WL 2300138, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2020) (concluding that plaintiff’s punitive damages claims could not stand on their own because her “fraud based claims failed and were dismissed” as generalized and conclusory). Accordingly, the court will also grant defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages.

Section 3294(b) permits punitive damages against an employer when an officer, director, or managing agent had advance knowledge and conscious disregard of an employee's unfitness, authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct, or engaged in oppression, fraud, or malice.

Jaekel v. Aytu BioScience, Inc. · filed 2022-08-10(b)

To establish punitive damages against an employer, a plaintiff must show that an “officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation” (1) had “advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee [accused of wrongdoing] and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others” or (2) “authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded” or (3) engaged in “oppression, fraud, or malice.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b).

Section 3294(b) limits a corporate employer’s punitive-damages liability for employee acts to cases involving specified employer conduct or advance knowledge, authorization, ratification, or personal culpability by an officer, director, or managing agent.

Ryan v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc. · filed 2023-07-31(b)

An employer such as Quest, however, “shall not be liable for damages . . . 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.” See Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b). Further, with respect to a corporate employer such as Quest, “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.” See id. Here, Plaintiff alleges only that “Defendants’ acts and omissions . . . were despicable conduct that subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of her rights; despicable conduct that were carried on by the Defendants with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of Plaintiff; and fraudulent.” (See Compl. ¶ 31.) Because Plaintiff fails to allege that Quest meets the requirements for a corporate employer under California Civil Code section 3294(b), the Court GRANTS Quest’s Motion and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages.

Section 3294 permits punitive damages against an employer for an employee’s wrongful conduct when the employer had advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorized or ratified the conduct, or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice; ratification may be shown by a managing agent’s adoption or approval of the conduct.

Jackson v. Amazon Logistics, Inc. · filed 2024-01-25(a) (b)

For an employer to be held liable for punitive damages under a ratification theory, a plaintiff must plead facts showing that the employer “demonstrate[d] an intent to adopt or approve oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious behavior by an employee in the performance of his job duties.” ... A corporate employer’s ratification of an act may be established by circumstantial or direct evidence demonstrating adoption or approval of the employee’s actions by the corporate agent, which may be inferred from a failure by the employer to investigate an employee’s acts once the employer has become aware of them. ... Plaintiff adequately alleges that Amazon’s managing agents ratified the delivery driver’s conduct. ... Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s punitive damages claims.

Section 3294(b) permits punitive damages against a corporate employer for an employee’s acts only when a corporate officer, director, or managing agent knew of the employee’s unfitness and consciously disregarded others’ rights, authorized or ratified oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious conduct, or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.

Bridges v. Kohl's Stores, Inc. · filed 2024-02-13(b)

California law limits the ability to impose punitive damages on a corporate employer for the acts of an employee. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3294. There are three paths under the applicable state statute to punitive damages: (1) if an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporate employer knew of the employee’s unfitness and employed her with conscious disregard for the rights of others; (2) if an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation authorized or ratified the employee’s oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious conduct; or (3) if the employer was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. Id.; Schluckbier v. Mastec N. Am., Inc., No. 14-cv-02047-VAP-DTB, 2015 WL 13918498, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2015). ... Here, plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged any facts that if proven would show that a managing agent or supervisory employee at Kohl’s knew of the loss prevention associate’s unfitness, ratified her conduct, or were themselves personally guilty of oppression, fraud or malice. Thus, defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages will be granted, with leave to amend. See Schluckbier, 2015 WL 13918498, at *5 (finding the plaintiff’s request for punitive damages “untenable” under the § 3294(b) framework).

A corporation may be liable for punitive damages based on an employee’s conduct only if an officer, director, or managing agent had advance knowledge and employed the employee with conscious disregard, authorized or ratified the conduct, or was personally guilty of it; a managing agent exercises substantial independent authority over decisions determining corporate policy.

Baird v. Leidos, Inc. · filed 2024-02-13(b)

A corporate entity cannot be liable for punitive damages resulting from its employees’ acts unless an officer, director or managing agent of the corporation: (1) 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; (2) authorized or ratified the conduct giving rise to punitive damages; or (3) was personally guilty of such conduct. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b). “Managing agents” are “those employees who exercise substantial independent authority and judgment over decisions that ultimately determine corporate policy.”

Section 3294(b) requires punitive-damages misconduct by an employer to involve advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, or ratification, and for a corporation requires the relevant conduct to be attributable to an officer, director, or managing agent.

Nguyen v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. · filed 2024-10-23(b)

In order to obtain punitive damages from an employer “based upon acts of an employee of the employer,” an employee must show that “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.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b). In the case of a corporate defendant, like Walmart, “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.” Id.

Section 3294(a) permits punitive damages when factual allegations plausibly show despicable conduct carried on with willful and conscious disregard of the plaintiff’s rights or safety; under section 3294(b), a corporate employer requires adequately supported allegations of advance knowledge, authorization, ratification, or similar conduct by an officer, director, or managing agent.

Estate of Vincent Frank Boscaino, Jr. v. Adventist Health Hanford · filed 2025-01-29(a), (b)

The Court agrees with Plaintiffs, reiterating that it must accept their factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in their favor. Their allegations are not merely “descriptive adjectives and legal conclusion,” rather, the gist of their complaint is that Dr. Monterroso, despite knowing of the danger to Decedent, delayed care, failed to provide proper medical treatment, and administered ineffective care. Such allegations at least plausibly indicate despicable conduct carried out by Dr. Monterroso with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of Decedent. ... Turning to the merits, the Court agrees—for the reasons discussed in connection with Dr. Monterroso’s motion—that Plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient to meet the malice, oppression, or fraud requirement for § 3294(a). ... While the Court acknowledges that courts have taken different approaches to the level of specificity needed to comply with § 3294(b), it concludes that Plaintiffs’ allegations are insufficient. ... Importantly, Plaintiffs allegations that Adventist ratified Dr. Monterroso’s conduct, without any supporting facts to explain how this was so, fail to meet the additional requirements to obtain punitive damages for employers. ... The same holds true here, and thus the Court will recommend granting Adventist’s converted motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages.

Section 3294(b) bars punitive damages against a corporate employer for an employee’s acts unless the required advance knowledge, authorization, ratification, or oppression, fraud, or malice is attributable to an officer, director, or managing agent.

Cao v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2025-02-28(b)

Subsection (b) of § 3294 provides that an employer “shall not be liable for [punitive] damages . . . based upon acts of an employee of the employer, unless the employer . . . [inter alia] authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” It further provides that “[w]ith 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.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b). The complaint makes no such allegation about BANA’s officers, directors, or managing agents, and Cao practically concedes the point. Dkt. No. 34 at 12. The request for punitive damages under § 3294 is dismissed.

Section 3294(a) requires adequate facts showing that an officer, director, or managing agent of a corporate employer was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice before punitive damages may be imposed; a FEHA discrimination claim alone is insufficient.

Romero v. Tribune Media Co. · filed 2025-03-20(a)

“Defendant moves to strike plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages under California law, on grounds that a corporate entity employer cannot be liable for punitive damages unless an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. ECF No. 17-1 at 17-18; Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a). ... The court agrees with defendant that plaintiff has not adequately alleged facts to support punitive damages. ... It is clear from the existence of limiting language in FEHA itself that this is not the intention of the statute. The motion to strike the punitive damages claim is GRANTED.”

Section 3294(b) permits punitive damages against an employer when the employer had advance knowledge of the risk that caused the plaintiff’s harm.

Sanchez · filed 2025-10-20(b)

Plaintiff refutes Defendant’s argument by explaining that her allegation of a pattern of behavior could give rise to punitive damages. ... Plaintiff’s claims of Sexual Assault, Battery, and Assault against OMDC survive this motion to dismiss and could give rise to punitive damages under California law. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b) (under which employers may be liable for punitive damages when they have advanced knowledge of the risk that caused a plaintiff’s harm). Thus, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s allegation of punitive damages is DENIED.

Section 3294 permits a corporate employer to be liable for punitive damages when an officer, director, or managing agent is plausibly alleged to have acted with malice, including conscious disregard for another’s rights or safety.

Randall · filed 2025-09-26(a), (b), (c)(1)

To receive punitive damages, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a). An employer is only liable for an employee’s actions if they 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.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b). For a corporate employer, the advance knowledge, conscious disregard, authorization, or ratification “must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation.” Id. Malice means conduct that is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct that it is done by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others. Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(c)(1).

Section 3294 permits punitive damages against an insurer for claims employees’ misconduct when their discretion over claims is sufficient to impute their actions to the insurer.

Egan v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance · filed 1979-08-14

When employees dispose of insureds’ claims with little if any supervision, they possess sufficient discretion for the law to impute their actions concerning those claims to the corporation.

Section 3294 requires a plaintiff seeking exemplary damages against a corporation for its employees’ acts to plead that an officer, director, or managing agent knew of, expressly directed, or ratified those acts.

Scannell v. County of Riverside · filed 1984-02-29(b)

It is true, as contended by defendant, that plaintiff has not pleaded that acts of employees of defendant corporation were done with the knowledge or under the express direction or ratification of an officer, director or managing agent of the corporation so as to justify exemplary damages against the corporation. (Civ. Code, § 3294.) Hence, defendant’s motion to strike allegations pertaining to exemplary damages in this cause of action should have been granted but the general demurrer should have been overruled.

Section 3294 permits punitive damages against a corporate employer when its managers tacitly ratify an employee’s misconduct through a policy of disregarding repair standards.

Siva v. General Tire & Rubber Co. · filed 1983-08-17(b)

Where there are production errors followed by other serious errors in a setting which indicates the managers are simply not looking at the final product, a jury can properly find the managers have instituted a policy which tacitly approves the work done. The tacit approval of misconduct in the circumstances of this case constitutes ratification of it.

Section 3294(b) permits punitive damages against a corporate employer for an employee’s acts only when the required knowledge, authorization, ratification, or misconduct is attributable to an officer, director, or managing agent.

Grieves v. Superior Court · filed 1984-06-14(b)

Moreover, a corporate employer may be liable only if the knowledge, authorization, ratification or act was on the part of an officer, director or managing agent of the corporation.

Section 3294 permits punitive damages against a corporation when a managing agent authorizes, ratifies, or approves an employee’s wrongful act.

Hobbs v. Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc. · filed 1985-01-29(b)

Section 3294 also permits an award of punitive damages against a corporation whose managing agent authorized, ratified, or approved the wrongful act.

Section 3294 permits a punitive damages award against a corporate employer even when the employees involved receive no punitive damages, if the employer ratified their conduct.

Roberts v. Ford Aerospace and Communications Corp. · filed 1990-10-16(b)

Additionally, we reject Ford’s assertion that the jury could not impose a punitive damage award against it without similarly assessing punitive damages against the employee defendants and that Ford could act with malice only through its employees.

Section 3294(b) limits corporate punitive damages to malice attributable to an officer, director, or managing agent.

Cruz v. Homebase · filed 2000-09-19(b)

But the law does not impute every employee’s malice to the corporation. Instead, the punitive damage statute requires proof of malice among corporate leaders: the “officer[s], director[s], or managing agent[s].” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (b).)

Section 3294(b) allows a plaintiff to prove the corporate managing-agent requirement through circumstantial evidence that information reached corporate policymakers, but not through speculation.

Romo v. Ford Motor Co. · filed 2002-06-28(b)

A plaintiff may satisfy the “managing agent” requirement of Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (b), through evidence showing the information in the possession of the corporation and the structure of management decision-making that permits an inference that the information in fact moved upward to a point where corporate policy was formulated. These inferences cannot be based merely on speculation, but they may be established by circumstantial evidence, in accordance with ordinary standards of proof.

Section 3294 permits punitive damages against a corporation based on an employee’s conduct only if the employee is an officer, director, or managing agent.

Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corporation · filed 2006-06-02(b)

Section 3294 permits punitive damages against a corporate employer if the employee is sufficiently high in the corporation’s decisionmaking hierarchy to be an “officer, director or managing agent.” ... Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Gelfo, we similarly conclude no substantial evidence showed MacPherson was a managing agent.

Section 3294(b) permits a punitive damages claim against a corporation when evidence supports an inference that senior management knew it was marketing a dangerous product and failed to warn of the danger.

Karlsson v. Ford Motor Co. · filed 2006-06-27(b)

The combined effect of these original sanctions could lead a jury to conclude that Ford, including senior management, knew it was marketing a defective and dangerous product and failed to warn about those dangers.

Section 3294(b) permits punitive damages against a corporate employer for an employee’s conduct when an officer, director, or managing agent knew of the employee’s unfitness and disregarded others’ rights, authorized or ratified the conduct, or committed oppression.

Myers v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc. · filed 2007-02-28(b)

Trendwest mistakenly reads this statute as stating that punitive damages cannot be awarded against a corporation for the conduct of an employee who is not a corporate officer, director, or managing agent. To the contrary, the statute says punitive damages cannot be awarded against a corporation for conduct of an employee unless a corporate officer, director, or managing agent had knowledge of the employee’s unfitness and disregarded the rights of others (or authorized/ratified the conduct or committed the act of oppression).

Section 3294(b) allows punitive damages against an employer for an employee’s conduct only when the employer meets the statute’s requirements for advance knowledge, authorization, ratification, or personal wrongdoing.

Flores v. Autozone West, Inc. · filed 2008-02-28(b)

Because the only viable theory of liability asserted against AutoZone is one based upon respondeat superior, the availability of punitive damages is controlled by Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (b). ... There is consequently no evidence of “ratification,” and the court did not err in disposing of the punitive damages claim.

An employee’s status as an agent alone does not establish that the employee is a managing agent for purposes of corporate punitive damages under section 3294(b).

Virtanen v. O'CONNELL · filed 2006-06-19(b)

Although O’Connell said that he was an “agent” of Parker Milliken with respect to the representation of Burstein and B-G, there is no evidence to show that he was a “managing agent” of Parker Milliken within the meaning of Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (b).

Section 3294(b) permits punitive damages against a corporation when a managing agent authorizes or ratifies an agent’s oppressive or malicious conduct.

Pulte Home Corp. v. Am. Safety Indem. Co. · filed 2017-08-30(b)

Under section 3294, subdivision (b), punitive damages can properly be awarded against a corporate entity as a principal, because of an act by its agents, if the corporate employer authorized or ratified wrongful conduct. ... These substantive conclusions on Pulte's entitlement to receive punitive damages from American Safety are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 3294(b) permits punitive damages against a corporate employer only when an officer, director, or managing agent committed, authorized, or ratified the wrongful conduct.

January v. Dr Pepper Snapple Group · filed 2014-12-03(b)

Although the district court correctly interpreted the stipulation as establishing that Dr Pepper was Plaintiffs’ employer, the district court erred in interpreting the stipulation as establishing Dr Pepper’s joint liability with ABC for compensatory and punitive damages. ... And nothing in the relevant statutes suggests otherwise. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(a) (providing that “[i]t is an unlawful employment practice . . . [f]or an employer” to discriminate against a person because of a protected ground (emphasis added)); Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b) (providing that punitive damages can only be imposed on a corporate employer if “an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation” committed, authorized, or ratified wrongful conduct (emphasis added)).

Section 3294(b) permits punitive damages against a corporation based on the conduct of an officer, director, or managing agent.

Citcon USA, LLC v. RiverPay, Inc. · filed 2020-09-08(b)

For a corporation to be liable for its agent’s or employee’s actions, the agent or employee must belong to the leadership group of officers, directors, and managing agents. ... Zheng and Han belong to the leadership group of RiverPay’s officers, directors, and managing agents. The jury thus could have attributed these other employees’ mental states to RiverPay even while declining to find that Hua or Shi acted with malice, oppression, or fraud.

Section 3294(b) allows a punitive damages claim against a corporate employer to proceed to trial when a responsible officer, director, or managing agent may have known of and condoned the misconduct.

Sample · filed 2026-01-16(b)

I will leave this issue for trial and DENY Cemex’s motion. It is unclear to what extent, if any, an “officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation” had advance knowledge and conscious disregard for the treatment of Mr. Sample. But if the harassing conduct was as widespread and serious as Mr. Sample contends, he will be allowed to show that a responsible Cemex official was aware of it and condoned it.

Section 3294(b) permits punitive damages against a corporation only when an officer, director, or managing agent has the required involvement in sufficiently culpable conduct.

Salud v. Expeditors International · filed 2020-04-10(b)

Although plaintiff has established triable issues related to retaliation, ... she has not proffered evidence that Expeditors, through any officer, director, or managing agent, ... acted with a level of culpability that rises to the level of extreme indifference.

Section 3294(b) permits punitive damages against a corporate employer when an officer, director, or managing agent authorizes, ratifies, or personally engages in oppression, fraud, or malice.

Pavithran v. Endpoint Clinical, Inc. · filed 2021-07-09(b)

The record here reveals triable issues of material fact as to whether an officer, director, or ... managing agent of Endpoint authorized, ratified, or was personally engaged in conduct that ... constituted oppression, fraud, or malice based on plaintiff's wrongful termination.

Section 3294(b) limits a corporate employer’s liability for punitive damages based on an employee’s acts to circumstances involving specified knowledge, authorization, ratification, or misconduct by an officer, director, or managing agent.

Jackson v. Target Corporation · filed 2023-07-07(b)

No facts suggest that Target had advance notice of its employee’s unfitness or that a corporate officer ratified, authorized, or participated in the alleged conduct. The court thus grants Target summary judgment on the claim for punitive damages.

Section 3294(b) requires clear and convincing evidence that a corporate officer, director, or manager authorized or ratified fraud before the corporation can be liable for punitive damages.

American Trim v. Oracle Corporation · filed 2004-09-01(b)

In order to hold a corporation liable for punitive damages based on fraud under § 3294(b) of the California Civil Code, a plaintiff must show by clear and convincing evidence that an officer, director or manager authorized or ratified the fraud.

Section 3294 requires proof of employer ratification or the employer’s own malice when punitive damages are sought on those grounds.

Andrade v. Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc. · filed 2016-12-13(b)

However, An-drade has not satisfactorily testified or pled facts proving by dear and convincing evidence that Altamira ratified or acted with malice regarding either the termination or the sexual harassment.