Judge: David A. Hoffer, Case: 30-2021-1234097, Date: 2022-11-28 Tentative Ruling

The motion by defendant Amy Lynn Briant to strike portions of the complaint by plaintiffs Dorothy Hagmier and Mary Anderson is DENIED.

Defendant moves to strike the following matters from the complaint:

1. Page 5, Second Cause of Action Attachment, the following language: “intentionally and/or while knowing of the substantially certain consequences of harm that would result from her conduct, acted with the requisite intent for the purposes of establishing malice and/or despicable conduct with willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.”

2. Page 6, Exemplary Damages Attachment.

3. Prayer, Page 3, section 14, wherein plaintiffs’ pray “for punitive damages according to proof.”

To survive a motion to strike a claim for punitive damages, facts must be alleged in the pleading to support circumstances of oppression, fraud or malice. (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166).  The definition of “malice” means conduct that is “despicable conduct which is carried on by defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.”  “The adjective “despicable” connotes conduct that is “‘... so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people.’”(Citations)”  (Lackner v. North (2006)135 Cal. App. 4th 1188, 1210.)  “In passing on the correctness of a ruling on a motion to strike, judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth. (Citations) In ruling on a motion to strike, courts do not read allegations in isolation.” (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.)

In the original complaint, the plaintiffs alleged only conclusory allegations regarding punitive damages, and, as a result, the motion to strike the punitive damages claims was granted.  Defendant contends this is merely a golf cart accident.  However, in the first amended complaint, the plaintiffs describe more.  Plaintiffs allege that defendant was a long time alcoholic with the reasonable inference being that she was aware of the effects of alcohol and the risks such created when operating a motor vehicle.  Plaintiffs allege that at the time of the accident, defendant had run a red light and was zigzagging in and out of traffic at a speed in excess of the speed limit.  For this pleading stage, the Court finds the plaintiffs have met their pleading burden.

Defendant is ordered to file an answer to the plaintiffs’ first amended complaint within 20 days.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this ruling.