Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2022-00051685-CU-PA-CTL, Date: 2023-11-03 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 02, 2023

11/03/2023  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 - Auto Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00051685-CU-PA-CTL CHANDLER VS BONAL [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant Claudia Bonal's motion to strike is DENIED.

A court may strike 'any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a).) 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.) An improper claim for punitive damages can be stricken. (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 163-64.) Here, Defendant seeks to strike the claim for punitive damages, and references to such claim in the first amended complaint, on the basis that Plaintiff Christopher Chandler has failed to allege facts that, if true, would enable him to seek punitive damages. The court disagrees; the allegations in the FAC are sufficient.

In tort cases, a plaintiff may seek punitive damages when the defendant is guilty of 'oppression, fraud or malice.' (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) Malice is defined as conduct that '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.' (Civ. 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.' (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(2).) Injuries that stem from drunk driving can constitute malice for purposes of punitive damages. (See Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 899 ['[O]ne who voluntarily commences, and thereafter continues, to consume alcoholic beverages to the point of intoxication, knowing from the outset that he must thereafter operate a motor vehicle demonstrates, in the words of Dean Prosser, 'such a conscious and deliberate disregard of the interests of others that his conduct may be called wilful or wanton.''].) Here, Plaintiff alleges in the FAC that the rear-end motor vehicle accident that caused his injuries was the result of Defendant illegally driving under the influence of alcohol, that Defendant knew prior to driving that driving while intoxicated is illegal and dangerous but did so anyway. (FAC, ¶¶ 14-19.) Although some of the allegations are conclusory, '[p]leading in the language of the statute (i.e., that defendants acted with 'oppression, fraud, and malice') is not objectionable when sufficient facts are alleged to support the allegation.' (Perkins v. Superior Court, 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6-7.) The facts alleged regarding the circumstances surrounding the crash are sufficient to support the conclusions of malice via drunk driving. In particular, the allegations related to what Plaintiff smelled (alcohol on Defendant's breath), saw (Defendant hiding what he believes was a beer bottle), and heard (slurred speech) must be Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3011232  27 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  CHANDLER VS BONAL [IMAGED]  37-2022-00051685-CU-PA-CTL taken as true, and are sufficient to support the claim for punitive damages. Defendant's arguments regarding the weight of evidence are factual arguments that not appropriate for consideration on a motion to strike.

The court also disagrees with Defendant that the original complaint and FAC are inconsistent. Plaintiff filed the original complaint in pro per, so it is unsurprising he took a minimalist approach to his pleading.

Even so, the original complaint did include a claim for punitive damages in the prayer for relief. The FAC drafted by counsel adds substantial detail, including specific factual allegations that support a claim for punitive damages.

Accordingly, Defendant's motion to strike is denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3011232  27