Judge: Eddie C. Sturgeon, Case: 37-2022-00036268-CL-PO-CTL, Date: 2024-01-26 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 25, 2024

01/26/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-67 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Eddie C Sturgeon

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Limited  PI/PD/WD - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00036268-CL-PO-CTL SMALLEY VS GONZALES [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Strike, 09/20/2023

Defendant Jorge Nepomuceno Gonzalez's unopposed Demurrer is SUSTAINED. Defendant's Motion to Strike Punitive Damages is GRANTED. Leave to amend is granted. Any amended complaint shall be filed within 20 days.

1. Demurrer A demurrer may be sustained upon defects that appear on the face of the pleading or any matter of which the court takes judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30.) Courts 'treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law.' (Sarale v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 225, 245.) A demurrer may be sustained where the pleading 'does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ.

Proc., § 430.10(e).) The complaint currently lacks allegations of sufficient specificity identifying Defendant or otherwise supporting the causes of action. Further, the demurrer is unopposed.

Accordingly, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend.

2. Motion to Strike Punitive damages are available in a tort action 'where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.' (Civ. Code, § 3294(a).) 'Something more than the mere commission of a tort is always required for punitive damages. There must be circumstances of aggravation or 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; see id. at 899-900 ['ordinarily, routine negligent or even reckless disobedience of traffic laws would not justify an award of punitive damages'].) A defendant's conduct must be 'despicable' and 'willful.' (Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1211 [quoting College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 713].) A claim for punitive damages cannot be plead generally. 'Pleading in the language of the statute is acceptable provided that sufficient facts are pleaded to support the allegations.' (Blegen v. Superior Court (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 959, 963.) Thus, a plaintiff must set out clearly, concisely, and with sufficient particularity, those facts and circumstances which constitute fraud, malice, or oppression.

(Lehto v. Underground Construction Company (1977) 69 19 Cal.App.3d 933, 944.) Here, there are insufficient allegations in the complaint to justify punitive damages. The motion is Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3022471  13 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  SMALLEY VS GONZALES [IMAGED]  37-2022-00036268-CL-PO-CTL granted with leave to amend.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3022471  13