Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2022-00026620-CU-PA-CTL, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 03, 2023

08/04/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Auto Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00026620-CU-PA-CTL IVIE-ZERBA VS BROWN [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: DEFENDANT HOSEA AMANI BROWN'S MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM PLAINTIFFS ANGEL MARIE IVIEZERBA AND APRIL HAILSTONE'S COMPLAINT is DENIED.

Defendant HOSEA AMANI BROWN seeks to strike certain allegations, including the prayer for punitive damages, asserted by Plaintiffs ANGEL MARIE IVIEZERBA AND APRIL HAILSTONE ('Plaintiffs').

Pursuant to CCP section 436, the Court has discretion at any time to strike portions of pleadings, including irrelevant, immaterial, and improper allegations. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) A claim for punitive damages must be specifically pled and show facts that, if proved, demonstrates the requisite degree of culpability necessary for imposing exemplary damages under Civil Code Section 3294. (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166-167.) A plaintiff's allegations are sufficient if the complaint alleges despicable conduct carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. (College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 713.) Jury Instructions for punitive damages define 'Despicable conduct' as 'conduct that is so vile, base, or contemptible that it would be looked down on and despised by reasonable people.' (CACI 3940.) Despicable conduct 'has been described as '[having] the character of outrage frequently associated with crime.'' (Tomaselli v. Transamerica Ins. Co. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1287 [citation omitted].) '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.' (Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 899–900.) In Taylor, the Court found the defendant's driving while intoxicated was a conscious disregarding of the plaintiff's safety in that case as the defendant, an alcoholic, had previously been arrested and convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol before the accident and had formal education on exactly how and why alcohol impairs one's ability to drive and its serious consequences. The defendant was well aware of the risk he was taking.

In Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 82 the plaintiff alleged: 'with knowledge that probable serious injury would result to persons in the area,' [defendant] ran a stop sign, and was zigzagging in and out of traffic at a speed in excess of 65 miles per hour in a 35-mile-per-hour zone at the entrance to a popular recreation area on a Sunday afternoon when many pedestrians and bicyclists were in the immediate vicinity. They also alleged that immediately after the accident [defendant] and his passenger falsely reported to the police that the passenger was driving rather than [defendant].

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2936290  68 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  IVIE-ZERBA VS BROWN [IMAGED]  37-2022-00026620-CU-PA-CTL (Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 82, 88.) The court stated '[t]he risk of injury to others from ordinary driving while intoxicated is certainly foreseeable, but it is not necessarily probable. The risk of injury to others from [defendant]'s conduct under the circumstances alleged was probable.' (Id. at 89.) As Defendant points out, the court in Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188 recognized that Civil Code section 3294 was amended by the Legislature in 1980 via the addition of the definition of 'malice' after Taylor and Dawes: As amended, malice, based upon a conscious disregard of the plaintiff's rights, requires proof that the defendant's conduct is 'despicable' and 'willful.' The statute's reference to 'despicable conduct' represents 'a new substantive limitation on punitive damage awards.' (citations omitted) Id. at 1111 The adjective 'despicable' connotes conduct that is '... so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people. (citations omitted) Id. at 18.

Lackner, which involved a motion for summary judgment that does not address the pleading standard, did not preclude the possibility that a motor vehicle accident that happened as a result of intoxication could lead to punitive damages. Further, Taylor was recognized in Herrick v. Superior Court (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 787 as being applicable in 1987, after the amendments discussed in Lackner. (Herrick v. Superior Court (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 787, 790.) Here, Plaintiffs' allegations do not include the same specifics that Taylor did as to prior knowledge that driving drunk was dangerous, such as alcoholism and prior DUIs. However, Plaintiffs have alleged other facts, combined with the driving while intoxicated, that indicate Defendant consciously disregarded probable dangerous consequences. Plaintiffs allege Defendant was racing with Co-Defendant Raul Manuel Morales and was driving 'at a rate in excess of 100 miles per hour without having their borrowed vehicles under control and were driving recklessly.' Plaintiffs further allege 'Defendant Hosea Brown attempted to flee the scene of the accident' and he 'was cited and arrested for a DUI (Vehicle Code 23153(a)).' Finally, Defendant and Co-Defendant Raul Manuel Morales' driving was such that their 'crashing into each other causing their vehicles to flip over.' The Court finds the allegations are sufficient to support Defendant engaged in despicable conduct with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. The motion is denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2936290  68