TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant The Regents of the University of California’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint is GRANTED without leave to amend as to Plaintiff Amir Mirzadeh’s claims and prayer for punitive damages.

Defendant The Regents of the University of California to give notice.

REASONING

Defendant The Regents of the University of California (“Defendant”) moves to strike Plaintiff Amir Mirzadeh (“Plaintiff”)’s prayer for punitive damages against it. The motion is confusing in that Defendant moves to strike the prayer from page 21, lines 14 to 15, of the complaint, which is within the twelfth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and is alleged against a different defendant and does not name this Defendant. However, in the interest of judicial efficiency, the Court considers all prayers for punitive damages in the complaint alleged against this Defendant.

The court may, upon 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).) 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) 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. (See Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349 [court shall not “sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is any reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment”]; Kong v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency (2002) 108 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1037 [“A demurrer should not be sustained without leave to amend if the complaint, liberally construed, can state a cause of action under any theory or if there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured by amendment.”]; Vaccaro v. Kaiman (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 761, 768 [“When the defect which justifies striking a complaint is capable of cure, the court should allow leave to amend.”].) The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)

Government Code section 818 states that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, a public entity is not liable for damages awarded under Section 3294 of the Civil Code or other damages imposed primarily for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.” Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (a), and section 3345, subdivision (b), make clear that damages imposed under those statutes are damages imposed for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant. Case law also specifically provides that punitive damages may not be sought against Defendant. (See Austin v. Regents of University of California (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 354, 358.)

Accordingly, Defendant The Regents of the University of California’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint is GRANTED without leave to amend as to Plaintiff Amir Mirzadeh’s claims and prayer for punitive damages.