Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV05638, Date: 2024-08-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV05638    Hearing Date: August 6, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:             Chin v. Firstenberg

CASE NO.:                   23SMCV05638

MOTION:                     Motion to strike  

HEARING DATE:   8/6/2024

LEGAL STANDARD 

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. (CCP § 435(b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1322(b).) The court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion and upon terms it deems proper: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (CCP §§ 436(a)-(b); 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”].) 

“Liberality in permitting amendment is the rule, if a fair opportunity to correct any defect has not been given.” (Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1227.) It is an abuse of discretion for the court to deny leave to amend where there is any reasonable possibility that plaintiff can state a good cause of action. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) The burden is on plaintiff to show¿in what manner¿plaintiff can amend the complaint, and¿how¿that amendment will change the legal effect of the pleading.¿(Id.) 

ANALYSIS 

Defendant Jean Firstenberg moves to strike the punitive damages allegations in Plaintiff Morgan Chin’s Complaint.  The complaint explains that this action arises out of an automobile accident on December 9, 2021, at the intersection of Wilshire Blvd., and Franklin St., in the City of Santa Monica, California. Plaintiff alleges she was lawfully driving eastbound on Wilshire Blvd. Defendant was driving on Franklin Street. (Compl., ¶ 6.) While turning onto Wilshire, Defendant made an unsafe left turn into the side of Plaintiff’s vehicle. Defendant allegedly failed to yield the right of way, failed to make a left turn with reasonable safety, negligently and dangerously operated her vehicle in violation of multiple rules of the road in violation of Vehicle Code Sections. (E.g., Veh. Code §§ 21801, 23103, 22350.) The complaint emphasizes that the collision was caused by the “recklessness, carelessness and negligence” of Defendant. (¶ 8.) The complaint further avers that Defendant’s “acts and/or omissions were either committed by or authorized, ratified, or otherwise approved in a deliberate, cold, malicious, intentional and/or unreasonable manner… causing injury and damage to PLAINTIFF, and done with a conscious disregard of PLAINTIFF’S rights and safety[.]” (¶10.)

Civil Code section 3294 defines malice as conduct “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.” (Id.) Despicable is a powerful term used to describe circumstances that are “base,” “vile,” or “contemptible.” (See Coll. Hosp. v. Superior Ct. (1994) 9 Cal.4th 704, 726.) The statute “plainly indicates that absent an intent to injure the plaintiff, “malice” requires more than a “willful and conscious” disregard of the plaintiffs' interests. The additional component of “despicable conduct” must be found.” (Id.)

Plaintiff’s allegations concerning Defendants’ negligent operation of a motor vehicle do not rise to the level of despicable conduct required to support malice or oppression. The above allegations only proffer bare conclusions of “malicious,” “intentional,” and “deliberate” conduct. There are no facts showing “base,” “vile,” or “contemptible” conduct required to support an allegation of despicable conduct. The Complaint also does not allege that Defendant collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle with an intent to injure Plaintiff. Thus, Plaintiff’s punitive damages request is unsupported.

The motion is also unopposed. Plaintiff therefore fails to demonstrate a reasonable probability of successful amendment. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to strike is GRANTED without leave to amend.