Judge: David A. Hoffer, Case: 30-2022-1240759, Date: 2022-08-08 Tentative Ruling

The Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s’ Complaint, filed on 4/26/22 by Defendant James Truschel, is DENIED. 

The Motion purports to be directed to the Second Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“COA 2”) and the punitive damages allegations.  But the Motion fails to actually identify any basis for such relief as to COA 2. The Motion as to COA 2 is therefore denied.

As for the punitive damages allegations, although the Complaint contains many pages of what appear to be inapplicable boilerplate allegations, the allegations in ¶ 56 suffice for pleading purposes to support the punitive damages allegations, as they include allegations of severe alcohol and drug intoxication along with dangerous and erratic driving while impaired, resulting in the subject accident. (See Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 82, 88-90 [“Petitioners alleged a good deal more than Mardian's decision to drive and his driving in an intoxicated condition….”]; Peterson v. Sup. Ct. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 147, 162 [allegations that defendant drove at high speeds after consuming  alcohol, over passenger’s protest, were sufficient to support punitive damages allegations].) The Motion as to the punitive damages allegations is therefore also denied.

Defendant Truschel is to answer the Complaint within 10 days.  Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.