Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV02715, Date: 2024-09-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV02715    Hearing Date: September 26, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Hosseini v. Yang, Case no. 24SMCV02715

Hearing Date September 26, 2024

Defendant Yang’s Motion to Strike Punitive Damages

Plaintiff Hosseini alleges defendant Yang struck her vehicle while intoxicated. Defendant moves to strike the prayer for punitive damages.

Punitive damages are allowable only when plaintiff proves defendant’s conduct constitutes oppression, fraud or malice. Cal. Civ. Code §3294(a). Facts giving rise to a claim for punitive damages must be pleaded specifically – vague or conclusory allegations are insufficient. G.D. Searle & Company v. Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 29. Punitive damages must be pleaded specifically, and 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, even gross negligence, are insufficient to support an award of punitive damage. Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 82, 88.

Plaintiff’s sole allegation regarding defendant’s alcohol consumption is “The aforementioned acts of Defendant Yang were willful and wanton in that Defendant Yang demonstrated a conscious and deliberate disregard of the rights, safety, and interests of others by voluntarily commencing, and thereafter continuing, to consume alcoholic beverages and/or narcotic medications to the point of intoxication, knowing from the outset that he must thereafter operate a motor vehicle.” Compl. para. 13. This is not sufficient. Plaintiff must allege specific facts.

Malice is conduct intended by the defendant to cause injury or despicable conduct carried on by defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. Civ. Code §3294(c)(1). Plaintiff alleged conscious disregard for the safety of others but failed to plead any specific facts showing such. See Dawes, supra (holding that the risk of injury to others from ordinary driving while intoxicated is certainly foreseeable but is not necessarily probable).

Plaintiff cites Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 899 and Peterson v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 147. Defendant correctly notes that in both cases, plaintiff alleged particular facts regarding speed and defendant’s behavior beyond merely the fact that they were allegedly driving while intoxicated.

The opposition states that after striking plaintiff’s vehicle, defendant struck two parked cars and fled the scene. However, this conduct is not alleged in the complaint. The motion is GRANTED with 20 days leave to amend to allege punitive damages.