Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2023-00011605-CU-PO-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  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 - Other Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2023-00011605-CU-PO-CTL JOHNSON VS HARRELL [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: DEFENDANT ALICIA HARRELL'S MOTION TO STRIKE THE PUNITIVE AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ALLEGATIONS FROM PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT is DENIED.

Defendant ALICIA HARRELL ('Defendant') seeks to strike allegations pertaining to punitive damages asserted by Plaintiff CHE'ANA ALEA JOHNSON ('Plaintiff'). 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].) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, after verbally threatening to physically assault Plaintiff, Defendant battered Plaintiff. (Complaint, ¶¶ 7-11.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges 'Defendant saw Plaintiff sitting on the adjacent sidewalk and Defendant began to verbally abuse and made taunting threats to Plaintiff.

Defendant precedingly decided to re-enter her vehicle, turned her vehicle on, and began approaching Plaintiff with her vehicle with malicious intent.' (Complaint, ¶ 11.) Defendant did not stop her vehicle and instead continued to operate her vehicle until colliding with Plaintiff's body. The collision caused Plaintiff to fall down onto the floor and significantly injured Plaintiff.

While Plaintiff was lying on the floor, Defendant backed-up her vehicle and separated her vehicle from Plaintiff's body. Defendant proceeded to drive towards Plaintiff again, for the second time. Defendant struck Plaintiff, who was lying on the floor, with her vehicle for the second time.

(Complaint, ¶ 12.) 'Plaintiff suffered from loss of consciousness as a result of the collision and the paramedics determined that Plaintiff needed to be transported to the hospital for further evaluation and treatment.' (Complaint, ¶ 16.) 'In passing on the correctness of a ruling on a motion to strike, 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. Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2978312  51 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  JOHNSON VS HARRELL [IMAGED]  37-2023-00011605-CU-PO-CTL Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.) 'What is important is that the complaint as a whole contain sufficient facts to apprise the defendant of the basis upon which the plaintiff is seeking relief.' (Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6.) Considering the whole of Plaintiff's allegations, the Court finds the allegations sufficiently allege conduct that could warrant the award of punitive damages. The motion is denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2978312  51