Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV01545, Date: 2023-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV01545, Date: 2023-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV01545 Hearing Date: December 6, 2023 Dept: C

maravilla v. zapata, et al.

CASE NO.: 23NWCV01545

HEARING: 12/6/23 @ 10:30 AM

Defendant Eva Ferris’ Motion to Strike Punitive Damages is GRANTED with leave to amend.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Defendant Eva Ferris (Defendant Ferris) moves for an order striking Plaintiff Marisa Maravilla’s (Plaintiff) claim for punitive damages.

Background

Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants Scarlet Zapata, Francisco Lopez, and Eva Ferris (collectively Defendants) alleging negligence and strict liability for a dog bite incident. Plaintiff is making a claim for punitive damages.

Legal Standard

Discussion

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were the owners of dogs which had previously escaped Defendants’ residence and killed another dog and attacked a person. Plaintiff claims that Defendants “were aware of the probability the Subject Dogs attacking people and animals [at] the time of the subject incident, yet Defendants consciously disregarded such dangers. Such conduct constitute a conscious disregard of the safety of others and constitutes malice.” (Compl., p. 6.) “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 a plaintiff.” (Clauson v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 1253, 1255.) “‘Nonintentional conduct comes within the definition of malicious acts punishable by the assessment of punitive damages when a party intentionally performs an act from which he knows, or should know, it is highly probable harm will result.’” (SKF Farms v. Superior Ct. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 907.) Here, Plaintiff’s allegations fail to rise to the level of conduct subject to punitive damages. Plaintiff claims that Defendants failed to properly house and restrain the dogs and that the prior incident on November 8, 2021, is sufficient to establish that Defendants’ conduct is worthy of punitive damages. However, Plaintiff’s allegations fail to demonstrate through ultimate facts that Defendants knew or should have known that there was a high probability of harm and not merely a potential for harm. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently plead a claim for punitive damages. Therefore, Defendant Ferris’ Motion to Strike Punitive Damages is granted with leave to amend.

Accordingly, Defendant Eva Ferris’ Motion to Strike Punitive Damages is GRANTED with leave to amend. Plaintiff is granted 30 days leave to amend.