Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV29102, Date: 2024-04-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV29102    Hearing Date: April 8, 2024    Dept: 27

HON. LEE S. ARIAN

DEPARTMENT 27

TENTATIVE RULING

Hearing Date:                4/8/2024 at 1:30 p.m.

Case No./Name:          23STCV29102 SCOTT ANTHONY MITCHELL vs JAVIER GIRON

Motion:                              MOTION TO STRIKE

Moving Party:                 Defendant Javier Giron

Responding Party:      Unopposed

Notice:                                Sufficient

¿ 

Ruling:                              DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE IS GRANTED.

Legal Standard

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(a).) The court may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Id., § 436(b).) The grounds for a motion to strike are that the pleading has irrelevant, false or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws. (Id. § 436.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Id. § 437.)

Punitive damages may be imposed 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).)¿ “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.” (Civil Code section 3294 (c)(1).) Under the statute, malice does not require actual intent to harm. Conscious disregard for the safety of another may be sufficient where the defendant is aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his or her conduct and willfully fails to avoid such consequences. (Pfeifer v.John Crane, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1299.) ‘Despicable’ is a powerful term that refers to circumstances that are ‘base,’ ‘vile,’ or ‘contemptible.’ (College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 725.)

A plaintiff must assert facts with specificity to support a conclusion that a defendant acted with oppression, fraud, or malice.¿ To wit, there is a heightened pleading requirement regarding a claim for punitive damages.¿ (Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1041-1042.)¿ “When nondeliberate injury is charged, allegations that the defendant’s conduct was wrongful, willful, wanton, reckless or unlawful do not support a claim for exemplary damages; such allegations do not charge malice. (G. D. Searle & Co. v. Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 29.)

CCP section 425.10 provides that “where an action is brought to recover actual or punitive damages for personal injury or wrongful death, the amount demanded shall not be stated.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.10(b).)

Background and Analysis

On November 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed the present auto accident case against Defendant Javier Giron. Defendant now moves to the Court to strike the following portions of the Complaint:

·         Plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages on page 3 of the Complaint. 

·         Plaintiff's prayer for damages in the amount of $814,488.06 on page 3 of the Complaint.

From December 29, 2023, to January 5, 2024, the Parties met and conferred, during which Plaintiff initially agreed to file an amended Complaint without a claim for punitive damages by January 8, 2024, but he failed to do so. Defendant has met the meet-and-confer requirement before filing the present motion.

Plaintiff must plead facts with specificity showing that Defendant acted with malice to substantiate a prayer for punitive damages, but Plaintiff filed a form complaint with no factual allegations. Additionally, the amount of damages for personal injury cannot not be stated on the complaint under CCP § 425.10(b). Plaintiff did not file an opposition. Thus, Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages and damages in the amount of $814,488.06 on page 3 of the is GRANTED with leave to amend.

If Plaintiff decides to amend the Complaint with facts substantiating a claim for punitive damages, he needs to plead specific facts with a clear and convincing showing of malice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:¿ 

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.