Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 24STCV14875, Date: 2025-06-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV14875    Hearing Date: June 11, 2025    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion to strike is DENIED.

            On 6/12/2024, Plaintiff Joseph Jeffrey Marazzito and Marciella Dominguez (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed suit against Reyna Nadie Pich (Defendant), alleging negligence.

            On 4/25/2025, Defendant Reyna Nadie Pich (Defendant) moved to strike portions of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

Discussion

            Defendant seeks to strike Plaintiffs’ prayer of punitive damages on the grounds that the claim is insufficiently pled.

            Ordinarily, a negligence claim cannot support a prayer for punitive damages as a matter of law. However, here, Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of a motor vehicle incident that was caused by Defendant’s alleged intoxication:

Specifically, at the time of the subject incident, Defendant Reyna Nadie Pich was unfit and incompetent to operate her vehicle, as she was knowingly under the influence of alcohol. Despite knowing that she had consumed excess amounts of alcohol which rendered her unfit to safely operate a vehicle, Defendant Pich knowingly, intentionally, maliciously, recklessly, and with conscious disregard for the health and safety of others, including Plaintiffs, recklessly and dangerously drove her vehicle at a dangerous rate of speed on a city roadway or highway. Defendant Pich was reckless and careless in her complete disregard for the flow of traffic and attendant circumstances, as she was erratically and dangerously stopping and accelerating her vehicle on the highway. Due to Defendant Pich's dangerous level of intoxication, her delayed reactions, and reckless disregard of her surroundings, she failed to observe Plaintiffs' vehicle slow and come to a stop with traffic, thereby overtaking Plaintiffs' vehicle and slamming into the rear of Plaintiffs' vehicle. After the collision, Defendant Pich acknowledged to police officers that she had knowingly consumed alcohol but still elected to operate her vehicle. Defendant Pich had consumed excessive levels of alcohol to result in visibly red and watery eyes, slurred speech, and was emitting a strong odor of alcohol. Defendant Pich was administered a series of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests ("SFST") due to suspected substance use. After failing the SFST, Defendant was arrested for violating CA Vehicle Code section 23152(a) - DUI. Defendant Pich's unconscionable and reckless behavior also violated other sections of the CA Vehicle Code, including section 21703, which states "The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon, and the condition of, the roadway;" and section 22350 which states " No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.

            (See Complaint.)

When considering a motor vehicle incident, California Courts have required “other dangerous conduct” or several “aggravating factors” beyond driving under the influence that made the risk of harm probable instead of merely possible. These factors include a Defendant’s prior DUI convictions where there was injury; where the Defendant had pending DUI charges at the time of the incident; where the Defendant is actively drinking while driving; where Defendant is speeding, swerving, and racing.” (Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 893).

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was erratically and dangerously stopping and accelerating her vehicle on the highway. As such, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged other aggravating factors which could support a prayer for punitive damages at the pleadings stage. (Peterson v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal. 3d. 147, 162.)

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to strike is denied.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  June    , 2025

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.