Judge: Joel R Wohlfeil, Case: 37-2022-00033252-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2024-01-05 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 04, 2024

01/05/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-73 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Joel R. Wohlfeil

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2022-00033252-CU-PO-CTL GARDNER VS TARIN [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication, 10/13/2023

The Motion (ROA # 45) of Defendant RICARDO TARIN ('Defendant') for summary adjudication of the claim for punitive damages by Plaintiff NOAH GARDNER, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, AMY GARDNER ('Plaintiff'), is DENIED.

Plaintiff's evidentiary objections (ROA # 68) are OVERRULED.

Civil Code section 3294(a) authorizes an award of punitive damages in noncontract actions 'where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression ... or malice....' 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.' Id. at (c)(1).

The adjective 'despicable' connotes conduct that is so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people. Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal. App. 4th 1188, 1210.

The wrongdoer must act with the intent to vex, injure or annoy, or with a conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights. Id. Punitive damages are appropriate if Defendant's acts are reprehensible, fraudulent or in blatant violation of law or policy. Id. The mere carelessness or ignorance of Defendant does not justify the imposition of punitive damages.

Id.

Punitive damages are proper only when the tortious conduct rises to levels of extreme indifference to Plaintiff's rights, a level which decent citizens should not have to tolerate. Id. In this action, the admissible evidence demonstrates disputed material facts as to whether Defendant's decision to walk the dog on a public sidewalk with no protective measures could constitute extreme indifference and conscious disregard of the safety of other people, including Plaintiff.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3035314  8