Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV04215, Date: 2024-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV04215    Hearing Date: January 25, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Salinas v. Garcia, et al., Case No. 23SMCV04215

Hearing date January 25, 2024

Defendants Garcia & Robinson’s Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint

Plaintiff Salinas sues for injuries sustained when defendants’ vehicle struck plaintiff’s bicycle. Defendants move to strike punitive damages allegations. Code Civ. Proc. § 435/436. The motion is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. Code Civ. Proc. § 435.5(a). Defendants’ request for judicial notice of the court file is granted, per Evidence Code § 452(d) as to the fact of filing and the allegations made, but not the truth of the allegations.

To state a claim for punitive damages (Civil Code 3294), plaintiff must allege specific facts showing malice, oppression or fraud. Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1042. The basis for punitive damages must be pled with specificity; conclusory allegations devoid of factual assertions are insufficient. Id. A motion to strike may lie where the facts alleged, if proven, would not support a finding that defendant acted with malice, fraud or oppression. Turman v. Turning Point of Central California (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.¿ 

“Malice” is defined in section 3294(c)(1) as “conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury” or “despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” To prove a defendant acted with “willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others,” it is not enough to prove negligence, gross negligence or even recklessness. Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 82, 87. Rather, a plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating “defendant acted in such an outrageous and reprehensible manner that the jury could infer that he [or she] knowingly disregarded the substantial certainty of injury to others.” Id. at 90. The allegations must be sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude defendant’s conduct was “despicable,” defined as “base, vile or contemptible.” College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 704, 725.

Defendants argue plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged punitive damages. Plaintiff alleges defendant voluntarily became intoxicated despite knowing he was going to drive, was aware of the probable consequences and potential peril to plaintiff, failed to avoid the consequences by driving his vehicle inattentive to surrounding traffic and at excessive speeds on a busy residential street at night, crashed into plaintiff, fled the scene as plaintiff laid in the middle of the intersection severely injured and was convicted of a felony. Complaint, p. 6.

In Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 892, the court concluded operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated may constitute an act of “malice” under section 3294 if performed under circumstances which disclose a conscious disregard of the probable dangerous consequences. Taylor¿fell short of holding punitive damages are always appropriate in cases involving driving while intoxicated. The Court noted, “we have concluded that the act of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated may constitute an act of ‘malice’ under § 3294 if performed under circumstances which disclose a conscious disregard of the probable dangerous consequences.”¿Id.¿at¿p.¿892.

Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 82, 89 likewise held driving while intoxicated does not always give rise to a claim for punitive damages.¿Taylor¿was decided prior to 1987, when the Legislature added the requirement to Civil Code Section 3294 that conduct be “despicable” to support imposition of punitive damages under a malice/willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others standard.

Here, plaintiff does not simply allege defendant was intoxicated but that he was inattentive, drove at an unsafe speed and fled the scene without checking on plaintiff’s condition. The alleged conduct, taken together, is sufficient to allege despicable conduct sufficient to state a claim for punitive damages. DENIED.