Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV03119, Date: 2024-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV03119    Hearing Date: January 17, 2024    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 1/17/24

Case #23CHCV03119

MOTION TO STRIKE

Motion filed on 11/27/23.

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Jose Servin, Jr. erroneously served as Jose Avila, Jr., Jesus Avila and Estela Avila

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Ka Hyun Kim, Hazel Kim and Iris Kim

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order striking paragraph 14.a. of the complaint which is the prayer for punitive damages. 

RULING: The motion is granted without leave to amend. 

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of motor vehicle accident that occurred on 8/12/22.  Plaintiffs Ka Hyun Kim, Hazel Kim and Iris Kim (Plaintiffs) allege that Defendant Jose Servin, Jr. (Servin) operated the vehicle involved in the accident and that the vehicle was owed by Defendants Jesus Avila and Estela Avila (the Avilas). 

On 10/12/23, Plaintiffs filed this action against Servin and the Avilas (collectively, Defendants)  for: (1) Motor Vehicle – Negligence and (2) General Negligence.  Plaintiffs also request punitive damages in their complaint.  Plaintiffs’ counsel did not respond to Defendants’ counsel’s meet and confer efforts regarding the issues presented by this motion.  (See Dondanville Decl.).  Therefore, on 11/27/23, Defendants filed and served the instant motion seeking an order striking paragraph 14.a. of the complaint which is the prayer for punitive damages.  Plaintiffs have not opposed or otherwise responded to the motion. 

ANALYSIS 

Punitive damages may be awarded upon a showing by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud or malice.  Civil Code 3294(a).  Civil Code 3294 defines malice as “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(c)(1).  The statute defines oppression as “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights” and fraud as “an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.”  Civil Code 3294(c)(2).

Here, Plaintiffs have alleged that the Avilas negligently entrusted their vehicle to Servin who allegedly ran a red light causing a collision with Plaintiffs’ vehicle.  Plaintiffs further allege that Servin then fled the scene with his passengers. 

Such allegations are insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages.  The complaint does not allege facts to establish that any of the Defendants had the requisite evil motive and/or knowledge of the probable dangerous consequences of their actions in this negligence-based action.  See Civil Code 3294; Taylor (1979) 24 C3d 890; Kendall Yacht Corp. (1975) 50 CA3d 949; Dawes (1980) 111 CA3d 82, 89.  Unreasonable, careless, grossly negligent and even reckless conduct, alone, is insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages.  G.D. Searle & Co. (1975) 49 CA3d 22; Lackner (2006) 135 CA4th 1188.

As noted above, Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion or otherwise indicated that they have additional facts to support a claim for punitive damages against Defendants.  As such, Plaintiffs have failed to establish that leave to amend is warranted under the circumstances. 

CONCLUSION

The motion to strike is granted without leave to amend.  Answer is due within 15 days.