Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22STCV21431, Date: 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV21431 Hearing Date: December 14, 2022 Dept: 28
Defendants Luis Arevalo and Ivan Mendoza’s Motion to Strike
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On June 30, 2022, Plaintiff Edward Michael Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Luis Arevalo (“Arevalo”) and Ivan Mendoza (“Mendoza”) for motor vehicle negligence.
On November 4, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion to Strike to be heard on December 14, 2022.
Trial is currently scheduled for December 28, 2023.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Defendants requests the Court strike the paragraphs ¶¶ 2-4 of Attachment MV-2f, as well as the request for punitive damages.
LEGAL STANDARD
“Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof, but this time limitation shall not apply to motions specified in subdivision (e).” (CCP § 435(b)(1), italics added.) “A notice of motion to strike must be given within the time allowed to plead, and if a demurrer is interposed, concurrently therewith, and must be noticed for hearing and heard at the same time as the demurrer.” (CRC 3.1322(b), italic added.) “The defendant shall answer the amendments, or the complaint as amended, within 30 days after service thereof, or such other time as the court may direct, and judgment by default may be entered upon failure to answer, as in other cases.” (CCP § 471.5(a).)
“The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (CCP § 437(a).) The court looks to whether “the complaint alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action or discloses a complete defense.” (Ivanoff, supra, 9 Cal.App.5th p. 725.) The court “assume[s] the truth of the properly pleaded factual allegations, facts that reasonably can be inferred from those expressly pleaded and matters of which judicial notice has been taken.” (Id.) “The court does not, however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. [Citation.]” (Durell v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.)
Code of Civil Procedure § 436 states that “[t]he court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time at 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 any order of the court.”
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)].)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants negligently caused injuries to Plaintiff. In Plaintiff’s attachment, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants acted in a joint venture, designed/manufactured/controlled the subject vehicle, new the product was defective, broke the warranty to Plaintiff, owned the video, and negligently supervised other employees.
Punitive Damages
Plaintiff’s complaint has no facts provided that would create a basis for punitive damages. It only alleges that Defendants caused a motor vehicle accident when acting negligently, resulting in injuries to Plaintiff. Negligence alone is not sufficient to establish malice, oppression or fraud. The Court strikes all requests for punitive damages.
Attachment
The subject paragraphs in the attachment are effectively allegations for manufacturing defect, design defect, failure to warn, and breach of implied/express warranty. However, these are not causes of action identified in the complaint, nor are there any facts to support these conclusory statements. The Court strikes the requested paragraphs.
CONCLUSION
Defendants Luis Arevalo and Ivan Mendoza’s Motion to Strike is GRANTED, with 30 days leave to amend. The Court strikes paragraphs ¶¶ 2-4 of Attachment MV-2f, as well as the request for punitive damages.
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.