Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC04723, Date: 2023-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC04723    Hearing Date: March 27, 2023    Dept: 26

Nayeri v. Estrada, et al.

MOTION TO STRIKE
(CCP § 435, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Otilia Estrada’s Motion to Strike First Amended Complaint is DENIED. DEFENDANT IS TO FILE AND SERVE AN ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 20 DAYS OR THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

On July 15, 2022, Plaintiff Robert Nayeri (“Plaintiff”) filed this action for general negligence and intentional tort against Defendant Otilia Estrada (“Defendant”). Defendant filed a Demurrer to the Complaint and Motion to Strike Complaint on October 25, 2022. The Court overruled the Demurrer to the Complaint, but granted the Motion to Strike the request for punitive damages with leave to amend. (Minute Order, 11/30/22.) Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint on December 1, 2022.

Defendant filed the instant Motion to Strike Portions of the First Amended Complaint on December 13, 2022, with a supplemental declaration on January 4, 2023. Plaintiff filed an opposition on February 28, 2023 and Defendant replied on March 14, 2023.

Discussion

Initially, the Court notes that the while the Motion to Strike First Amended Complaint purports to strike the second cause of action for intentional tort and the request for punitive damages, no analysis is included regarding striking the intentional tort cause of action. Therefore, the Court will only address the propriety of the request for punitive damages. The Court also notes that Defendant’s arguments regarding their version of the incident—i.e., the claim that Defendant was acting in self-defense—cannot be considered in ruling on the instant Motion to Strike. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 437.) Also, Defendant’s request for judicial notice of the police report regarding the subject incident is denied. First, the request for judicial notice is not made pursuant to any legal authority. (Supp. Opfell Decl., filed 01/04/23, p. 1.) Second, judicial notice of police reports is not proper. (See People v. Jones (1997) 15 Cal.4th 431A, 171 n. 17, overruled on other grounds by People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800.)

Defendant brings the instant Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 436. The Motion is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5. (Motion, Opfell Decl., ¶¶2-4 and Exh. A.) Defendant moves to strike the allegations and prayer for punitive damages on the grounds that they do not meet the statutory requirements. The second cause of action for intentional tort alleges that Defendant “attacked Plaintiff with their fists and a skate board and struck him numerous times about his head and body, thereby knocking him to the ground” with the intent to make unwanted contact with Plaintiff’s body.” (FAC, ¶IT-1.) It is also alleged that Defendant intended to injure Plaintiff and they knew their conduct would injure Plaintiff. (Ibid.) As a result, Plaintiff suffered multiple injuries. (Ibid.)

Punitive damages are authorized by Civil Code section 3294 in non-contract cases “where the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, express or implied . . . .”  (Civil 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, § 3294, subd. (c)(1).) Oppression means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights. (Civil Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(2).) Fraud means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the party of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury. (Civil Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(3).)

As with the Motion to Strike the punitive damages allegations in the Complaint, the instant Motion to Strike argues that Plaintiff must allege despicable conduct to support the request for punitive damages. The Court already explained that allegations of despicable conduct are not required. The statute allows either the allegation that Defendant intended to cause Plaintiff injury or despicable conduct carried out with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. The First Amended Complaint now includes facts alleging that Defendant intended to cause injury by striking Plaintiff’s head and body with their skateboard and fists, or alternatively, knew such injury would occur. These detailed allegations confer an intent to injure Plaintiff and are sufficient to demonstrate malicious conduct by Defendant. Under the statutory standard, the First Amended Complaint supports the request for punitive damages.

Conclusion

Defendant Otilia Estrada’s Motion to Strike First Amended Complaint is DENIED. DEFENDANT IS TO FILE AND SERVE AN ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 20 DAYS OR THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.