Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV01273, Date: 2023-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV01273    Hearing Date: December 7, 2023    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      December 7, 2023                                           TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         FELIPE PEREZ, v. SHINE CHANG; and DOES 1 to 20.  

CASE NO.:                 23AHCV01273

MOTION TO STRIKE

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Shine Chan

RESPONDING PARTY:      Plaintiff Felipe Perez

SERVICE:                              Filed November 30, 2023 (served September 27, 2023)

OPPOSITION:                       Filed November 21, 2023

REPLY:                                   No reply filed.  

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for exemplary and punitive damages.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Felipe Perez’s claim that Defendant Shine Chang (“Defendant”) negligently operated his vehicle and reversed into Plaintiff’s person. Plaintiff filed this complaint on June 5, 2023.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive and exemplary damages is GRANTED with 15 days leave to amend.

LEGAL STANDARD

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike a pleading or any part thereof.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1).)  The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a).)  The court may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with California law, a court rule, or an order of the court.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).)  An immaterial or irrelevant allegation is one that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense; is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense; or a demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., 431.10, subd. (b).)  The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)   

DISCUSSION

            Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive and exemplary damages.

            Punitive damages may be imposed where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.  (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a). A plaintiff seeking punitive damages “must include specific factual allegations showing that defendant's conduct was oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious to support a claim for punitive damages. [Citation.] Punitive damages may not be pleaded generally.” (Today’s IV, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1137, 1193.)

            Civil Code section 3294 provides a definition for each basis for punitive damages. Malice is defined as “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 defined as “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).) Fraud is defined as “an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(3).)

            Plaintiff’s allegations contain general or conclusory statements that Defendant acted with malice or oppression. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant drove at dangerous speeds while reversing out of a parking spot. However, one of the cases cited by Plaintiff undercuts his argument that his allegations are sufficient. In Daws v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 82, 90, the Court approvingly cited language that argued that allegations of “intoxication, excessive speed, driving with defective equipment of the running of a stop signal, without more, do not state a cause of action for punitive damages.” Plaintiff’s allegations fail to allege that Defendant acted with malice or oppression sufficient to plead a prayer for punitive damage.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive and exemplary damages is GRANTED with 15 days leave to amend.

Dated:   December 7, 2023                                         ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org