Judge: Martha K. Gooding, Case: 2022-01243606, Date: 2022-10-03 Tentative Ruling

1) Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint

2) Case Management Conference

The Motion by Defendant Jeffrey Salmi (“Defendant”) to Strike Portions of the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Leann Wang (“Plaintiff”) is DENIED.

Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages and allegations supporting the same. At this juncture, the Court cannot find, as a matter of law, that Plaintiff could not recover such damages, based on her allegations that Defendant consumed “significant amounts of intoxicating substances” and then operated a motor vehicle at an “unsafe speed.” (See Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 892-893; see also Peterson v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 147, 150-151 [a proposed complaint that alleges “defendant drove with excessive speed after consuming alcohol, and that defendant lost control of the vehicle causing personal injury,” could, if leave to amend is granted, “support a finding of malice within the meaning of Civil Code section 32941 as interpreted by Taylor, and thus an award of punitive damages”).

Defendant appears to suggest that, because Plaintiff ultimately needs to prove “oppression” or “malice” by “clear and convincing evidence,” Plaintiff should not be able to proceed without alleging the “clear and convincing” evidence in her complaint. But only “ultimate facts” are properly alleged in a complaint at the pleading stage. Evidentiary facts “that might eventually form part of the plaintiff's proof need not be alleged.” C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872; see Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial at ¶ 6:125 (explaining, as an example, that the allegation that “defendant drove his car immediately after having consumed a fifth of vodka’ is “technically objectionable as ‘evidentiary’ matter” and that the “ultimate fact” is that “defendant drove while under the influence of alcohol”).

Thus, the Court declines to strike these matters from the Complaint. Code Civ. Proc. § 436.

Defendant is ordered to answer the Complaint within 10 days. Plaintiff shall give notice of the ruling.