Judge Jill Feeney, Case 22STCV19488 2023-01-24 Tentative Ruling

This is an action for negligence and negligent entrustment arising from a vehicle collision which took place in September 2021. Plaintiff Gilbert Guerrero filed his Complaint against Defendants Franklin Vladimir Lopez Alas, Taaj Conti Condooll, Ofer Saha, and Manuel Fabian on June 15, 2022.

3. Page 4, Paragraph 22, lines 26-28 “intent to injure GUERRERO, or with a willful and conscious disregard of GUERRERO'S rights; Defendants’ conduct constitutes clear and convincing evidence of outrageous, oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent, conduct”

Alas argues that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to support a demand for punitive damages because allegations that Alas engaged in street racing with complete disregard for public safety are inadequate to show Alas engaged in despicable conduct.

Plaintiff argues that the Complaint adequately alleges facts that Alas engaged in street racing with a conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s safety. Additionally, Plaintiff argues that Alas’s motion seeks to strike facts that are not relevant to punitive damages.

Alas argues that Plaintiff’s opposition cites cases from prior to the 1988 amendment to Civ. Code, section 3294. Additionally, Alas argues Plaintiff cites criminal cases that have no bearing on the definition of malice under Civ. Code, section 3294.

Any 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. (Code Civ. Proc., section 435, subd. (b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1322, subd. (b).) The court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion and upon terms it deems proper: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc. section 436, subd. (a)-(b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782.)

In order to state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a complaint must set forth the elements as stated in the general punitive damage statute, Civil Code section 3294. (College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 721.) These statutory elements include allegations that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice. (Civ. Code, section 3294, subd. (a).)

“Malice is defined in the statute as conduct 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.” (College Hospital, Inc., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 725 [examining Civ. Code, section 3294, subd. (c)(1)].) “A conscious disregard of the safety of others may constitute malice within the meaning of section 3294 of the Civil Code. In order to justify an award of punitive damages on this basis, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his conduct, and that he willfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences.” (Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895-896.)

“As amended to include [despicable], the statute plainly indicates that absent an intent to injure the plaintiff, ‘malice’ requires more than a ‘willful and conscious’ disregard of the plaintiffs’ interests. The additional component of ‘despicable conduct’ must be found.” (College Hospital, Inc., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 725.) The statute’s reference to despicable conduct represents a “new substantive limitation on punitive damage awards.” (Ibid.) Despicable conduct is “conduct which 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.’” (Tomaselli v. Transamerica Ins. Co. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1287.)

“In order to survive a motion to strike an allegation of punitive damages, the ultimate facts showing an entitlement to such relief must be pled by a plaintiff. [Citations.] In passing on the correctness of a ruling on a motion to strike, judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth. [Citations.] In ruling on a motion to strike, courts do not read allegations in isolation. [Citation.]” (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.) “The mere allegation an intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages. [Citation.] Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim. [Citation.]” (Grieves v. Superior Ct. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166 (footnote omitted

Before filing a demurrer and motion to strike, the demurring and moving party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading demurred to and sought to be stricken in person or by telephone for the purposes of determining whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of an amended pleading that would resolve the issues in argued in the demurrer and motion to strike. (Code of Civ. Proc. sections 430.41; 435.5.)

Alas’s counsel’s declaration states that the parties met and conferred via telephone. (Caponegri Decl., ¶4.) Plaintiff’s counsel requested a written meet and confer letter and confirmed a 30-day extension to respond to the Complaint. (Id.) The parties could not reach an informal resolution of the issues raised by the instant motion to strike. (Id., ¶¶5-7.) Alas satisfies the meet and confer requirements.

The Complaint states that on September 25, 2021, Plaintiff was standing at a street corner when Defendants caused Plaintiff’s injuries while driving their vehicles. (Compl., ¶12.) Defendants Alas and Condoll were engaged in street racing, drag racing, and/or speed contests. (Compl., ¶13.) Plaintiff believes that Defendants’ conduct was undertaken to injure Plaintiff or with a willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s safety. (Compl. ¶22.) The Complaint also states Defendants’ conduct constitutes outrageous, oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent conduct. (Compl., ¶22.)

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to provide facts describing despicable conduct sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages. The bare allegation of street racing without more facts about what happened is insufficient to show that Alas engaged in conduct that was so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people. Additionally, Plaintiff must allege facts establishing that Alas was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his conduct, and that he willfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences.

However, Alas’s requests number 1 and 4 must be denied. Page 3, Paragraph 13, lines 16-17, and Page 5, Paragraph 25, line 12 both state that Alas “engaged in street racing, drag racing and/or speed contests.” These allegations are not only relevant to punitive damages, but are also relevant to describing the events giving rise to this action and because they are relevant to Plaintiff’s action for negligence.