Judge Gary I. Micon, Case Number: 23CHCV02647, Date: 2024-03-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 23CHCV02647, Date: 2024-03-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV02647 Hearing Date: March 12, 2024 Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 3-12-24

Case # 23CHCV02647, Avo Topjian, et al. vs. Florence Seckler, et al.

Trial Date: N/A

MOTION TO STRIKE

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Florence Seckler and Charles Orellana

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Avo Topjian and Lilia Iranoosian

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Strike

· Claims for Punitive Damages and related allegations [FAC, portions of ¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 22, 23, and 24; and Paragraph 4 of the prayer]

RULING: The Court requests further briefing.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiffs Avo Topjian and Lilia Iranoosian (Plaintiffs) filed this case on September 1, 2023. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleges that Topjian was driving and Iranoosian was a passenger when their vehicle was rear-ended by Defendant Charles Orellana, who was driving a vehicle which Plaintiffs believe to be insured in the name of Defendant Florence Seckler.

After Orellana rear-ended Plaintiffs, he sped away from the scene of the collision without stopping to check on Plaintiffs or exchange information. Plaintiffs followed Orellana’s vehicle into the nearby parking garage in an attempt to get Orellana to stop and exchange information. Instead, Orellana ran a stop sign and drove around other vehicles in an attempt to get away from Plaintiffs. Orellana eventually abandoned the vehicle on the second floor of the parking garage. When the Sheriff’s Department arrived to investigate, there was an open bottle of vodka in the rear seat. Plaintiffs allege that they suffered bodily injuries and emotional distress as a result of the collision.

Plaintiffs’ FAC alleges one cause of action for negligence. Plaintiffs’ have also requested punitive damages as part of their complaint based on Orellana’s conduct after the collision.

Defendants filed their motion to strike on October 26, 2023. Defendants want the Court to strike Plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages and the related allegations, as well as allegations related to Seckler and insurance. Plaintiffs oppose Defendants’ motion.

ANALYSIS

This Court may strike from the complaint any irrelevant, false, or improper matter. Under CCP § 435, “[a]ny party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof.” Under CCP § 436(a), “[t]he court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper . . . [s]trike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.”

Defendants have moved to strike Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages and associated allegations. However, it is rather unclear to the Court why Defendants have requested that several of the allegations be stricken.

First, Defendants have requested that allegations related to Defendant Seckler being the insured (Paragraph 8 on page 2) be stricken because of Evidence Code § 1155. However, nothing about the insurance is being offered as evidence or to prove negligence or other liability. Additionally, the statement that says “nor insurance information” from Paragraph 9 on page 3 is not being offered as evidence and is simply related to the allegations that Defendant Orellana did not stop to give insurance information.

Next, Defendants have requested that allegations from Paragraph 9 on page 3 related to what happened after the collision be stricken. Defendants have not proffered any reason for why this information should be stricken.

Defendants have also requested that allegations related to Orellana’s alleged violation of Vehicle Code Sections 20001 and 20003 be stricken from paragraph 10 on page 3.

Further allegations that Defendants have requested be stricken from the complain are allegations related to Plaintiffs’ alleged emotional distress caused by Defendants’ actions (Paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15).

Additionally, Defendants have requested that several allegations related to Orellana’s conduct after fleeing the scene be stricken (Paragraphs 17, 22, 23, and 24.)

Finally, Defendants request that Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages be stricken from the complaint.

If this were a case of simple negligence leading to the collision, then punitive damages would likely be barred. However, Plaintiffs have also alleged that Orellana violated Vehicle Code Sections 20001 and 20003. It is unclear from Plaintiffs’ complaint and Defendants’ motion what effect these allegations would have on the negligence cause of action.

Based on the state of the briefing by both parties, the Court is asking for supplemental briefing. The Court has no basis for ruling on this in its current state, as it is difficult to tell what is being alleged and why certain allegations should be stricken. Therefore, the Court requests that the moving party address with citation to authority the basis for moving to strike each designated portion of the complaint. Plaintiffs should respond with corresponding specific opposition points and authorities. Absent clarity and specificity, the Court finds itself unable to analyze the issues.

Additionally, the parties must file briefing evaluating the hit and run aspect of the allegations and whether that implicates punitive damages or is simply superfluous information beyond the alleged negligent collision. For actions under Vehicle Code Sections 20001 and 20003, it is the run, not the hit, that is the crime. (See People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1124.) The Court requests briefing on what impact “the run” would have on this case.

The parties are to submit supplemental briefing. The Court will set a briefing schedule and a new hearing date at the hearing on this motion.

Moving parties to give notice to all parties.