Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV01765, Date: 2023-08-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV01765    Hearing Date: September 5, 2023    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Moran v. Amron, et al., Case No. 23SMCV01765

Hearing Date August 22, 2023 Continued to 09/05/2023

Defendants Amron’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff Moran’s First Amended Complaint/Punitive Damages

Defendants move to strike punitive damages in this dog bite case.

While ordinary negligence is not sufficient to impose punitive damages, when tortious conduct rises to the level of “extreme indifference to a plaintiff’s rights,” unintentional harm can nonetheless constitute malice or oppression for the purposes of awarding punitive damages. Scott v. Phoenix Schools, Inc. (2009) 175 Cal.App.702, 716.

The Amron defendants argue the FAC does not allege intentional conduct or aggravating circumstances or rise to the level of “despicable” conduct required for punitive damages.

The FAC alleges defendants were aware their dog had a vicious nature and propensity to attack and bite, even when unprovoked. Plaintiff alleges this is the dog’s fifth assault. FAC ¶7. At the pleading phase, these allegations must be treated as true. A reasonable fact finder could conclude that failing to take steps to restrain a dog after five previous attacks constitutes “extreme indifference” sufficient to allow for the imposition of punitive damages. DENIED.