Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV38993, Date: 2022-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV38993    Hearing Date: August 17, 2022    Dept: 28

Defendant Auto Pro Auto Supply’s Motion to Strike

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On October 9, 2020, Plaintiffs Herminio Ramirez (“Herminio”) and Omar Ramirez (“Omar”) filed this action against Defendants William Storm (“Storm”) and John Doe (“Doe”) for motor vehicle negligence, general negligence, violation of vehicle code § 20001(a) and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendants Auto Pro Auto Supply (“Auto”) and Juan De La Cruz (“De La Cruz”).

On June 24, 2022, Auto filed a Motion to Strike to be heard on August 17, 2022.

There is no trial date currently scheduled.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Auto requests the Court strike the request for punitive damages on the basis that the alleged facts do not support the imposition of punitive damages.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 430.10 states: “The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds: (a) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading; (b) The person who filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to sue; (c) There is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action; (d) There is a defect or misjoinder of parties; (e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; (f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, “uncertain” includes ambiguous and unintelligible; and (g) In an action founded upon a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct.”

In order to state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a complaint must set forth the elements as stated in the general punitive damage statute, Civil Code Section 3294. (Coll. Hosp., Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 704, 721.) These statutory elements include allegations that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Civ. Code § 3294 (a).) “Malice is defined in the statute as conduct 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." (Coll. Hosp., Inc., supra, 8 Cal. 4th at 725 [examining Civ. Code § 3294(c)(1)].)

“[S]imple negligence will not justify an award of punitive damages.” (Spencer v. San Francisco Brick Co. (1907) 5 Cal.App.126, 128.) Civil Code § 3294(a) states: “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 damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.” “[E]ven gross negligence, or recklessness is insufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages.” (Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal App 3d 82, 87.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s complaint provides that on October 11, 2018, at the subject location, Defendants negligently merged Defendants’ vehicle into Plaintiff’s lane, colliding with Plaintiff’s vehicle. Defendants then sped off.

The Court finds that the facts, as pled, do not provide a basis for a claim for punitive damages. Plaintiff effectively pleads that Defendants collided with Plaintiff and then fled the scene. That is insufficient to support a finding of oppression, fraud of malice. Malice requires intent to injure or despicable conduct carried on with willful and conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others. A simple hit and run does not qualify as such. In the absence of aggravating allegations, there is no basis for punitive damages. The Court grants the motion.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Auto Pro Auto Supply’s Motion to Strike is GRANTED, with 30 days leave to amend.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.