Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV13867, Date: 2023-11-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV13867    Hearing Date: November 27, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

I.          INTRODUCTION 

On June 15, 2023, Plaintiff Farhad Rabbany (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Juan Madrigal (“Defendant”) alleging one cause of action for (1) Negligence arising from a motor vehicle accident whereby Defendant’s car collided with Plaintiff’s car. Plaintiff sustained various injuries.

On October 5, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion to Strike. As of November 17, 2023, no Opposition has been filed.

II.        LEGAL STANDARDS 

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole 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); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782 [“Matter in a pleading which is not essential to the claim is surplusage; probative facts are surplusage and may be stricken out or disregarded”].)  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.) 

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment.  (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.)  The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully.  (Ibid.) 

III.       DISCUSSION 

Before filing a demurrer or motion to strike, the demurring or moving party shall meet and confer with the party who has filed the pleading and shall file a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.41, subd. (a); 435.5, subd. (a).)  The Court notes that no meet and confer declaration was provided. In its discretion, the Court can consider the motion without the required meet and confer declaration.  The Court will do so here.

Defendant moves to strike the following portions of the Complaint:

1.     Paragraph 10, page 2, lines 21-24 which state, “At all times mentioned in this complaint, defendant JUAN MADRIGAL, WERE driving and operating the automobile UNDER THE INFLUENCE (despicable conduct) with the consent, permission, and knowledge of defendant, JUAN MADRIGAL, and/or authorized agents” in its entirety;

2.     Paragraph 11, page 2, lines 25-26, which state, “On July 9, 2021, defendant, JUAN MADRIGAL, and/or, negligently operated a certain automobile, UNDER THE INFLUENCE (despicable conduct) and, as a proximate result of that negligent operation, collided with plaintiff’s automobile.”

3.     Prayer for Relief: Page 4, lines 17-18, which states: “6. For punitive damages.”

Defendant argues that the Complaint does not include facts that support claims for punitive damages. The Complaint only states that Defendant was “under the influence,” but does not provide any other facts indicating that Defendant’s conduct was malicious or despicable. Additionally, the Complaint only contains conclusory allegations.

To obtain punitive damages, a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts in support of punitive damages.  (See Hilliard v. A.H. Robins Co. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 374, 391-92.)  In addition, punitive damages are allowed only 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).)  Courts have viewed despicable conduct as conduct “so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people. (Scott v. Phoenix Schools, Inc., (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 702, 715.) Further, Civil Code § 3294(c) provides the definition of malice, oppression, and fraud. Malice is “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.” Oppression is “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.” Fraud is “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.”

            After a review of the Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege conduct that would be considered malicious, oppressive, or fraudulent. The Complaint states that Defendant was under the influence, without any further factual allegations. As indicated above, claims for punitive damages are only allowed if there is clear and convincing evidence that the individual was guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud. While the Court in Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890 found that punitive damages were obtainable if a person was driving under the influence, the Court in Lackner stated “despicable conduct was not a requirement when Taylor was decided.” (Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1212.) As stated above, conduct that is “so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people.” (Scott, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at 715.) Here, the allegations in the complaint do not rise to the type of conduct that would be considered despicable. Plaintiff states in a conclusory fashion that Defendant was under the influence. Of what? How did Plaintiff know this? Was Defendant arrested or charged with DUI? The facts are not sufficient for a claim for punitive damages. Moreover, the Lackner court found that the Taylor circumstances were extreme: the defendant had been drinking an alcoholic beverage, had been an alcoholic, had a history of drinking and driving, had previously caused a serious accident, and had been convicted numerous times of DUI. (Lackner supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at 1211, fn. 14.)  No similar allegations were made here.

            Thus, the Court finds that the Motion to Strike is GRANTED.

Leave to Amend:

Leave to amend should be liberally granted if there is a reasonable possibility an amendment could cure the defect.  (County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 1018,1035.)  The Plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that leave to amend should be granted, and that the defects can be cured by amendment. (“Plaintiff must show in what manner he can amend his complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of his pleading.” Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) Plaintiff has failed to provide a responsive pleading and thus has not demonstrated that the complaint can be amended.

Leave to Amend is DENIED.

IV.       CONCLUSION 

Motion to Strike is GRANTED, without leave to amend.

Moving party to give notice. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar. 

Dated: November 27, 2023