Judge: Michael J. Strickroth, Case: 2022-01272683, Date: 2023-08-28 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint

Defendant Emma Waltraud’s Motion to Strike Portions of the Complaint is GRANTED. 

Code of Civil Procedure section 435(b)(1) provides: “Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof.”

Code of Civil Procedure § 436 provides in pertinent part: "The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.” “Irrelevant matter” includes allegations not essential to the claim.  Code of Civil Procedure §431.10(b).)  A motion to strike can also strike legal conclusions. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide, Civil Proc. before Trial, ¶ 7:179 (2010).) Conclusory allegations are permitted, however, if they are supported by other factual allegations in the complaint. Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6.

Punitive damages

Civil Code § 3294 provides that punitive damages may be awarded in an action for breach of an obligation not arising from contract, if the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.

“Malice” means conduct that is intended to cause injury or despicable conduct that is carried on with a willful and conscious disregard of the right and safety of others. Civ. Code § 3294(c)(1); Mock v. Michigan Millers (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 306, 328.  It is conduct so extreme as to rouse the contempt and outrage of reasonable people. American Airlines, Inc. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1050-1051.  The adjective “despicable” connotes conduct “so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people.” Mock, supra, at 331.

At the pleading stage, the complaint must allege facts supporting circumstances of oppression, fraud, or malice. 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. [Citation] Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim. [Citation].”).

Citing to an article on punitive damages in vehicle accident cases, the Court of Appeal in Dawes stated: “[A]llegations of intoxication, excessive speed, driving with defective equipment or the running of a stop signal, without more, do not state a cause of action for punitive damages. [Par.] On the other hand, if the facts show that the defendant intentionally drove his vehicle at a high speed into an intersection with pedestrians, or if he drove at a high speed through a crowded residential area where children were playing in the street, a legitimate inference of actual malice perhaps could arise . . . .’” [Citation.] Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 82, 90. 

The crux of Plaintiffs’ Complaint is that Defendant intentionally took her eyes away from road to look for a specific building, thereby running a red light, and hitting Plaintiffs while traveling 40 mph.  Plaintiffs allege such actions evidence a wanton and reckless disregard for the safety of others.  (Complaint ¶¶ 16, 17.)

Taking one’s eye off the road to look for a building while driving a car might be negligent and perhaps even grossly negligent.   However, such actions do not rise to the level of despicable conduct.  There are no allegations Defendant intended to hit Plaintiffs, was driving at an excessive speed, or was intoxicated.  Without more, such actions do not support a finding of malicious conduct and punitive damages.  Therefore, the Court grants the motion to strike. 

The motion is unopposed.  The Court Orders the following to be stricken from the Complaint:

1. “Vehicle Code Section 23103(a) makes it illegal to drive a vehicle with willful or wanton disregard for the safety of people” (Complaint, page 3, ¶ 12, lines 10-12);

2. “wantonly and recklessly” (Complaint, page 3, line 22);

3. The entirety of paragraph 22 (Complaint, page 4, lines 14-17);

4. The entirety of paragraph 32 (Complaint, page 5, lines 23-26);

5. Prayer for punitive damages (Complaint, page 6, lines 6-7);

6. Any and all other reference to malice, oppression, or fraud; and

7. Any and all other reference to punitive or exemplary damages.

Moving party to give notice.