Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 23SMCV01506, Date: 2024-02-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV01506    Hearing Date: February 20, 2024    Dept: O

 Case Name:  Edde v. De La Darre, et al.

SUBJECT:                 MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES

MOVING PARTY:   Defendants Marco Sandoval and Alexa De La Darre

RESP. PARTY:         Plaintiff Antoine Edde

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendants Marco Sandoval and Alexa De La Darre’s Motion to Strike a claim for punitive damages from Plaintiff Antoine Edde’s complaint is DENIED. Plaintiff states enough facts for a reasonably jury to conclude Defendants’ actions were committed with oppression or malice pursuant to CCP § 3294.

            A judge may, on a motion to strike made under CCP § 435 or at any time at the judge's discretion, “strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter in a pleading,” on terms the judge “deems proper.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436(a).).  “[I]rrelevant . . . matter” means an immaterial allegation in a pleading and includes an allegation that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense. (Code Civ. Proc. § 431.10(b)(1) and (c).)

            CC §3294(a) provides, “In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.” (Cal Civ. Code § 3294, subdiv., (a).)

               “Malice is ‘conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.’ (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1).) Oppression is ‘despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.’ (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(2).) Despicable conduct is conduct that is so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people. Such conduct has been described as having the character of outrage frequently associated with crime.” (Scott v. Phoenix Schools, Inc. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 702, 715.)

            Whether Defendants’ conduct is “despicable conduct” is a question of fact for the jury that a court should not decide in ruling on a motion to strike. (Robinson v. Managed Accounts Receivable Corp., (2009) 654 F. Supp. 2d 1051, 1065.)

            Plaintiff Antoine Edde (“Edde”) pleads facts to state that Defendants Marco Sandoval and Alexa De La Darre were engaging in a motor vehicle speed contest on a highway while Edde was a passenger in the car, that the motor vehicle crashed as a result of this “illegal race,” and that this behavior was “despicable conduct with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, including other drivers, pedestrians, and her own passengers, including Mr. Edde, who was seriously injured in the crash. (Compl., p. 6.) A reasonable jury could find that Defendants alleged conduct is “conduct that is so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people.” (Scott, supra, 175 Cal.App.4^th at p. 715.) Further, a reasonable jury could decide that Defendants conduct was despicable “with a wilfiull and knowing disregard of the rights and safety of others.” Thus, a motion to strike punitive damages is not warranted at this stage in the case, and the Motion to Strike is DENIED.