Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 22BBCV00772, Date: 2023-01-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV00772    Hearing Date: January 27, 2023    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Hrant Grant Abraamyan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action, alleging that he was involved in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on May 14, 2022 with Defendant Ruth Stefania Mendez.  He alleges that Defendant Julio Eli Mendez owned the motor vehicle and that Ruth Stefania Mendez operated the vehicle with Julio Eli Mendez’s permission.  Plaintiff also alleges that Julio Eli Mendez was a passenger of Defendants’ vehicle and, following the accident, approached Plaintiff’s vehicle, struck Plaintiff’s vehicle, and punched Plaintiff in the head.

            The complaint, filed October 17, 2022, alleges causes of action for: (1) motor vehicle; (2) general negligence; (3) intentional tort – assault against Julio Eli Mendez; (4) intentional tort – battery against Julio Eli Mendez; and (5) willful misconduct against Julio Eli Mendez.

B.     Motion on Calendar

On December 28, 2022, Defendants filed a motion to strike portions of the complaint.

On January 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition brief to the motion.   

DISCUSSION

Defendants move to strike all references to punitive damages in the complaint on the grounds that the complaint fails to allege sufficient facts regarding Julio Eli Mendez’s actions as despicable and malicious.  Defendants move to strike the allegations that Julio Eli Mendez existed the vehicle, approached Plaintiff, struck Plaintiff’s vehicle, and that he punched Plaintiff in the head.

A complaint including a request for punitive damages must include allegations showing that the plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages.  (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.)  A claim for punitive damages cannot be pleaded generally and allegations that a defendant acted "with oppression, fraud and malice" toward plaintiff are insufficient legal conclusions to show that the plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages.  (Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 872.)  Specific factual allegations are required to support a claim for punitive damages.  (Id.)

Civil Code § 3294 authorizes a plaintiff to obtain an award of punitive damages when there is clear and convincing evidence that the defendant engaged in malice, oppression, or fraud.  Section 3294(c) defines the terms in the following manner:

(1)   "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.

(2)   "Oppression" means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.

(3)   "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. 

Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages is made against Julio Eli Mendez only.  The punitive damages claim is based on Plaintiff’s 3^rd to 5^th causes of action for assault, battery, and willful misconduct.  In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Julio Eli Mendez made a deliberate decision to approach and strike Plaintiff’s vehicle, to approach Plaintiff’s driver side door and violently and forcefully punch Plaintiff in the head through the car window, while Plaintiff was seated in his car.  (See Compl. at p.8, ¶4.)  He alleges that Julio Eli Mendez’s actions were done with the knowledge and/or notice that violating striking a person’s unprotected head could and did result in sever and significant injuries, yet Julio Eli Mendez engaged in the misconduct nonetheless.  (Id.)  Plaintiff alleges that Julio Eli Mendez’s actions were outrageous, callous, and knowingly done.  (Id.) 

At the pleading stage, the allegations for punitive damages are sufficient to allege that Julio Eli Mendez’s conduct was despicable and amounted to malice pursuant to Civil Code, § 3294.  At the demurrer stage, the Court accepts the truth of the allegations.  Whether punitive damages will in fact be awarded will have to be determined beyond the pleading stage and upon Plaintiff’s presentation of clear and convincing evidence to warrant punitive damages.

            Accordingly, the motion to strike is denied.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Defendants’ motion to strike the allegations for punitive damages in the complaint is denied.

            Defendants shall provide notice of this order.