Judge: Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case: 24STCV15477, Date: 2024-11-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV15477    Hearing Date: November 26, 2024    Dept: 58

Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki

Hearing Date:             November 26, 2024

Case Name:                Ramirez v. Torres

Case No.:                    24STCV15477

Motion:                       Motion to Strike Portions of the Complaint 

Moving Party:             Defendant Gary Torres

Opposing Party:          Plaintiff Angelica Ramirez

            This is a dog bite case. Plaintiff sued her former landlord, Gary Torres, for (1.) strict liability and (2.) negligence.  

            Defendant now moves to strike the request for punitive damages. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

            The motion to strike is granted.

Legal Standard

            “The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.)  “Immaterial” or “irrelevant” matters include allegations not essential to the claim, allegations neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or a demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10, subds. (b)(1)-(3).)

Discussion

            Here, Defendant requests the Court strike Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages.  

With respect to allegations of punitive damages, they are recoverable where the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, express or implied. (Civ. Code, § 3294.) “Something more than the mere commission of a tort is always required for punitive damages. There must be circumstances of aggravation our outrage, such as spite or ‘malice,’ or a fraudulent or evil motive on the part of the defendant, or such a conscious and deliberate disregard of the interests of others that his conduct may be called willful or wanton.” (Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 894-895 [quoting Prosser, Law of Torts (4th ed. 1971) § 2, at pp. 9-10] [italics omitted].) However, specific intent to injure is not necessary for a showing of malice—it is sufficient that the defendant’s conduct was so “wanton or so reckless as to evince malice or conscious disregard of others’ rights.” (McConnell v. Quinn (1925) 71 Cal. App. 671, 682.)

A request for punitive damages that is not supported with specific allegations of oppression, fraud, or malice is subject to a motion to strike. Conclusory allegations that defendants acted “willfully,” “maliciously,” or with “oppression, fraud, or malice” are not, without more, sufficient to give rise to a claim for punitive damages, but such language is permissible where the complaint contains sufficient factual support for the conclusions. (Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6-7.)

The Complaint contains no allegations showing any wanton, willful, malicious or fraudulent conduct by Defendant. Specifically, Plaintiff only provides vague conclusory allegations regarding an earlier dog attack on May 3, 2022. (Compl., ¶ 10.) Similar, allegations regarding an “almost” attack on the mailman on June 3, 2022 are also vague. (Compl., ¶ 12.) There are no clear allegations as to the severity of the alleged attacks or Defendant’s knowledge of extent of these attacks. Thus, allegations of Defendant’s knowledge of the viciousness of his dogs is weak. Further, the specific allegations of the attack on Plaintiff suggests that the dog escaped from Defendant’s house at the time of the June 21, 2022 attack. (Compl., ¶¶ 14-15 [“she heard her landlord’s door open, and his young son “Boggy” yell “No Spot”!!].)

Thus, the allegations show -- at most -- carelessness in Defendant’s exercise of control of the dog. That is, the allegations do not show Defendant engaged in conduct demonstrating “willful and conscious disregard” to the rights and safety of others. Accordingly, the Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to support a request for punitive damages.

Conclusion

            The Motion to Strike is granted. Plaintiff shall have leave to amend. An amended complaint shall be filed and served no later than December 26, 2024.