Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 23SMCV02804, Date: 2024-01-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV02804    Hearing Date: January 16, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

This case arises from an alleged vehicle accident.  Defendant Devonn Burress (“Defendant”) has moved to strike from the Complaint references to and requests for punitive damages.  No opposition was filed.

ANALYSIS

1. MOTION TO STRIKE

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a motion to strike the whole pleading or any part thereof.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1322, subd. (b).)  On a motion to strike, the court may: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subds. (a)-(b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782.)

In ruling on a motion to strike punitive damages, “judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth.”  (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.)  To state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a plaintiff must allege the elements set forth in the punitive damages statute, Civil Code section 3294.  (College Hosp., Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 721.)  Per Civil Code section 3294, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.  (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).)   As set forth in the Civil Code,

(1) “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.  (2) “Oppression” means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.  (3) “Fraud” means 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.

(Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1)-(3), emphasis added.) 

Further, a plaintiff must assert facts with specificity to support a conclusion that a defendant acted with oppression, fraud or malice.  To wit, there is a heightened pleading requirement regarding a claim for punitive damages.  (See Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1041-1042.)  “When nondeliberate injury is charged, allegations that the defendant’s conduct was wrongful, willful, wanton, reckless or unlawful do not support a claim for exemplary damages; such allegations do not charge malice.  When a defendant must produce evidence in defense of an exemplary damage claim, fairness demands that he receive adequate notice of the kind of conduct charged against him.” (G. D. Searle & Co. v. Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 29 [cleaned up].)  In Anschutz Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Snepp, the Court of Appeal noted that the plaintiffs’ assertions related to their claim for punitive damages were “insufficient to meet the specific pleading requirement.”  (Anschutz Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Snepp (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 598, 643 [plaintiffs alleged “the conduct of Defendants was intentional, and done willfully, maliciously, with ill will towards Plaintiffs, and with conscious disregard for Plaintiff's rights. Plaintiff's injuries were exacerbated by the malicious conduct of Defendants. Defendants' conduct justifies an award of exemplary and punitive damages”]; see also Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166 [“The mere allegation an intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages.  Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud, or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim”].) 

In Taylor v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court held: “We consider whether punitive damages are recoverable in a personal injury action brought against an intoxicated driver.  As will appear, we have concluded that the act of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated may constitute an act of “malice” under section 3294 if performed under circumstances which disclose a conscious disregard of the probable dangerous consequences.”  (Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 892 [cleaned up].)  The California high court further held that “[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.”  (Id. at p. 899.)  But the California high court also stated, “Although the circumstances in a particular case may disclose similar wilful or wanton behavior in other forms, ordinarily, routine negligent or even reckless disobedience of traffic laws would not justify an award of punitive damages.”  (Id. at pp. 899-900.) 

            Here, the Complaint alleges, in relevant part:

10. At all times mentioned in this complaint, defendant DOMINIC CIRINCIONE , WERE driving and operating the automobile UNDER THE INFLUENCE (despicable conduct) with the consent, permission, and knowledge of defendant, DOMINIC CIRINCIONE, and/or or authorized agents.

11. On JUNE 29, 2022, defendant DOMINIC CIRINCIONE, and/or, negligently operated a certain automobile, UNDER THE INFLUENCE, (despicable conduct) […]

(Complaint at ¶¶ 10-11, emphasis original.)

            Defendant argues that these allegations that Defendant was driving “under the influence” and the request for punitive damages should be stricken because Defendant was neither charged with nor convicted of a DUI, and there are no facts supporting Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant drove under the influence. 

            The Court agrees in part that Plaintiff’s conclusory allegation that Defendant drove and operated the automobile under the influence without any other supporting factual detail is not pleaded with sufficient particularity to support a claim of punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294 and as instructed by Taylor v. Superior Court. 

As to striking paragraphs 10 and 11,[1] the Court finds that there is no legal basis to strike those allegations as the Court must “read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth” at this point in the litigation.

2. LEAVE TO AMEND

            A plaintiff has the burden of showing in what manner the complaint could be amended and how the amendment would change the legal effect of the complaint, i.e., state a cause of action.  (See The Inland Oversight Committee v City of San Bernardino (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 771, 779; PGA West Residential Assn., Inc. v Hulven Int'l, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 156, 189.)  The plaintiff must not only state the legal basis for the amendment, but also the factual allegations sufficient to state a cause of action or claim.  (See PGA West Residential Assn., Inc. v Hulven Int'l, Inc., supra, 14 Cal.App.5th at p. 189.)  Moreover, a plaintiff does not meet his or her burden by merely stating in the opposition to a demurrer or motion to strike that “if the Court finds the operative complaint deficient, plaintiff respectfully requests leave to amend.”  (See Major Clients Agency v Diemer (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1133; Graham v Bank of America (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 594, 618 [asserting an abstract right to amend does not satisfy the burden].) 

            Here, Plaintiff failed to meet that burden to demonstrate additional facts that could be added to the Complaint to support Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages because Plaintiff did not file a brief opposing the motion.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants in part Defendant’s Motion to Strike and orders the prayer for  punitive damages stricken from the complaint.  The Court denies the balance of Defendant’s motion. 

Further, the Court orders Defendant to file an Answer to the complaint on or before February 2, 2024.

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service regarding the same. 

DATED:  January 16, 2024                                                    ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court