Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV03773, Date: 2024-12-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV03773    Hearing Date: December 16, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Carpenter v. Trigo, Case no. 24SMCV03773

Hearing date December 16, 2024

Defendants Trigo’s Motion to Strike Punitive Damages

Plaintiff Carpenter sues defendants for injuries arising out of a rear end automobile accident. Defendants seek to strike the prayer for punitive damages.

To obtain punitive damages, plaintiff must prove 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. 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 – carelessness or ignorance are not enough. Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 82, 88. On a motion to strike, allegations must be treated as true. E.g., Clauson v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.

Plaintiff alleges negligence, with allegations regarding punitive damages in a cause of action for “Malice.” Compl. paras. 11, 17. Plaintiff alleges defendant Jayden Trigo struck plaintiff’s car while using a cell phone. Compl. paras. 3-7, 18.

California law has long established negligence alone is not a sufficient basis for punitive damages. Dawes, supra. Merely pleading that conduct was willful does not satisfy the pleading standard for punitive damages; conduct must be malicious and despicable. Cal. Civ. Code §3294(a). Defendant’s alleged cell phone use does not constitute malicious or despicable conduct. Motion to strike punitive damages is GRANTED.