Judge: John C. Gastelum, Case: 22-01254456, Date: 2022-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Strike

Tentative Ruling:  Defendant Angel Rodriguez (“Defendant”) moves for an order striking the prayer for punitive damages from Plaintiffs Estate of Domingo Avila Delgado, Isidora Orozco Avila, and Guadalupe De Jesus Avila Orozco’s (“Plaintiffs”) Complaint on the grounds that the allegations fail to support the imposition of such damages.

Initially, the Court notes Defendant failed to meet and confer regarding the issues raised in this Motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5.  The Court will exercise its discretion to consider the merits of the Motion but admonishes counsel that future failure to comply with all applicable rules and statutes may result in the denial of a motion or taking the motion off calendar, where appropriate. 

Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (a) permits the recovery of punitive damages upon a clear and convincing showing that a defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud or malice.  “Malice” means 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” means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.  (Id., § 3294, subd. (c)(2).)  “Fraud” means 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.  (Id., § 3294 subd. (c)(3).)

“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 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.  [Citations.]”  (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.)

Both parties rely on Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 893, which held that “[o]ne who willfully consumes alcoholic beverages to the point of intoxication, knowing that he thereafter must operate a motor vehicle, thereby combining sharply impaired physical and mental faculties with a vehicle capable of great force and speed, reasonably may be held to exhibit a conscious disregard of the safety of others.”  (Id., at p. 897.)  Further, Taylor stated that “the act of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated may constitute an act of malice under Section 3294 if performed under circumstances which disclose a conscious disregard of the probable dangerous consequences.”  (Id., at p. 892.)

After Taylor, the Legislature amended the definition of “malice” under Civil Code section 3294.  As amended, malice, based upon a conscious disregard of the plaintiff’s rights, requires proof that the defendant's conduct is “despicable” and “willful.”  The statute’s reference to “despicable conduct” represents “a new substantive limitation on punitive damage awards.”  (Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1211.)  Lackner offered further guidance and explained “despicable conduct” is conduct that is “so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that is would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people.” (Id., at 1210.)

Here, the Complaint alleges Defendant negligently and reckless operated a 2021 Nissan NV Passenger van motor vehicle by making an unsafe turning movement, speeding, failing to yield the right of way, making an unsafe left turn, failing to keep a proper lookout of his surroundings, and operating said vehicle while impaired and under the influence of alcohol, drugs, and/or other illegal substances.  (Compl., ¶ 16.)  The Complaint further alleges Defendant willfully consumed alcoholic beverages before he operated the vehicle while speeding and defendant was or will be criminally prosecuted of a felony violation of Penal Code section 191.5 (Gross Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated) or a similar statute as a result of the collision.  (Compl., ¶¶ 26, 54.)

These allegations are sufficient to establish that Defendant acted with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.  The Complaint alleges Defendant’s conduct involved more than mere intoxication, including speeding, unsafe driving, and consumption of alcohol while knowing that he would be operating a vehicle.  The allegations are also sufficient to demonstrate despicable conduct by Defendant, or conduct that is so contemptible that it would be despised or looked down upon by ordinary decent people.

Thus, the Motion to Strike is DENIED.

Defendant to give notice.