Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2022-00049116-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2023-11-17 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 16, 2023

11/17/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2022-00049116-CU-PO-CTL SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY VS ORION CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Cross-Defendant San Diego Gas & Electric Company's motion to strike is GRANTED.

Cross-Complainant Orion Construction Corporation's request for judicial notice of the first amended complaint in Emmett Allen v. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (San Diego Superior Court, Case No.

37-2023-00023432-CU-PO-CTL) is granted, but only as to the existence of the pleading. To the extent Cross-Complainant relies on the factual allegations in that complaint to oppose Cross-Defendant's motion to strike, the request is denied.

A court may strike 'any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a).) An improper claim for punitive damages can be stricken. (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 163-64.) Punitive damages are not favored and are generally granted only 'with the greatest caution.' (Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment and Housing Comm'n (1987) 43 Ca1.3d 1379, 1392.) A claim for punitive damages must also be pled with specificity; conclusory allegations unsupported by facts showing malicious, fraudulent, or oppressive intentions will not suffice. (G.D.

Searle & Co. v. Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 32-33; Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1041-42.) Punitive damages are available only in non-contract actions 'where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 3294, subd. (a). Facts that, if true, would demonstrate mere negligence or only recklessness do not warrant an award of punitive damages. (Johns-Mansville Sales Corporate Private Carriage v. Workers Comp.

Appeals Bd. (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 923, 931.) Even gross negligence is not sufficient. (Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1210-11.) Here, the cross-complaint lacks the requisite specific, non-conclusory factual allegations of reprehensible conduct that might support a claim for punitive damages. The allegedly negligent, or even grossly negligent or reckless, failure to mark an active service line, as pleaded, does not rise to the kind of despicable conduct necessary to state a claim for punitive damages. Accordingly, Cross-Defendant's motion to strike is granted and the prayer for punitive damages and references to punitive damages (Cross-Complaint, ¶¶ 7, 15, and Prayer for Relief, ¶ 2) are stricken. Cross-Complainant will be given leave to amend its complaint.

Cross-Complainant has 30 days from entry of this order to amend its cross-complaint.

The minute order is the order of the court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3004618  35 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY VS ORION  37-2022-00049116-CU-PO-CTL Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3004618  35