Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV02676, Date: 2024-11-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV02676    Hearing Date: November 26, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Ortiz v. City of Santa Monica, Case no. 24SMCV02676

Hearing date November 26, 2024

Defendant’s Motion to Strike Punitive Damages

Plaintiff Ortiz sues for injuries sustained when defendant Alevizos, who was driving under the influence, struck him as he waited for a bus. Alevizos moves to strike the cause of action for willful misconduct and prayer for punitive damages.

Punitive damages are allowable only when plaintiff proves oppression, fraud or malice. Civ. Code §3294(a). Facts giving rise to a claim for punitive damages must be pleaded specifically. G.D. Searle & Company v. Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 29. Conclusory requests for punitive damages without factual support are subject to a motion to strike. E.g., Cyrus v. Haveson (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 306, 316-317; Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 164. Recklessness or negligence are insufficient to support an award of punitive damage. Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 82, 88. On a motion to strike, allegations in a pleading must be treated as true. E.g., Clauson v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.

Defendant Alevizos argues plaintiff fails to plead facts sufficient to state a claim for punitive damages, as Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, holds punitive damages are not available in drunk driving cases absent despicable behavior. Alevizos argues despicable behavior means behavior “so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people,” not merely reckless or willful behavior. See, e.g., Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188. Defendant argues plaintiff simply alleged Alevizos became willfully intoxicated and chose to drive. See Compl. paras. 42-44.  Allegations of drunk driving, even at high speeds, absent additional reckless behaviors, such as racing, are not sufficient to claim punitive damages. See Dawes, supra, at 90.

Plaintiff argues defendant Alevizos’ actions constitute malicious behavior sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages, as his actions are analogous to those of defendant in Taylor, supra, wherein defendant was liable for punitive damages. Defendant in Taylor was alleged to have been an alcoholic with a habit of drunk driving, which the court found sufficient to infer malice. Plaintiff here makes no such allegations against Alevizos; mere allegations of drunk driving, even at high speeds, are insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages or willful misconduct.

Plaintiff seeks leave to amend. Defendant Alevizos’ motion to strike the third cause of action for willful misconduct and prayer for punitive damages is GRANTED with 15 days leave to amend.