Judge: Richard Y. Lee, Case: 30-2022-01288517, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants, Christianne Lehman and Elizabeth Freeman (“Cross-Defendants”) move for an order striking portions of the Cross-Complaint of Defendants/Cross-Complainants Herminia Gomez (“H. Gomez”) and Rodrigo Gomez (“R. Gomez”) (collectively, “Cross-Complainants”) concerning a claim for punitive damages at paragraphs 42, 49, 56, 58, 64, 71, 78, and the Prayer for Relief.

Cross-Defendants contend that Cross-Complainants fail to state facts sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages against Cross-Defendants as required by Civil Code section 3294, as the alleged acts by Cross-Defendants amount to a neighbor dispute but does not meet the standard of conduct necessary for punitive damages, and thus, should be stricken.

Cross-Complainants contend that the motion should be denied as the conduct enumerated in the Cross-Complaint is despicable, with willful and conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, and subjected the elderly Cross-Complainants to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of their rights. Cross-Complainants assert that the actions complained on are not a simple neighbor dispute.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 436, the court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike out “...any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading” or “all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 436(a)-(b); See Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Ctr. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1281.) Irrelevant matters include allegations not essential to a claim or defense, allegations not pertinent to nor supported by a sufficient claim or defense, or requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint or cross-complaint. (Code Civ. Proc. § 431.10(b).) The policy of the law is to construe pleadings “liberally . . . with a view to substantial justice.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 452.) 

“In order to survive a motion to strike an allegation of punitive damages, the ultimate facts showing an entitlement to such relief must be pled by plaintiff. [Citations.] 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. [Citations.] In ruling on a motion to strike, courts do not read allegations in isolation. [Citations.]” (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.) “Further, even though certain language pleads ultimate facts or conclusions of law, such language when read in context with the facts alleged as to defendants’ conduct may adequately plead the evil motive requisite to recovery of punitive damages.” (Monge v. Superior Court (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 503, 510.)

To support exemplary damages, the complaint must allege facts of defendant’s oppression, fraud, or malice, as required by Civil Code section 3294.  (Civil Code § 3294(a); College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 721; Turman v. Turning Point of Central Calif., Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.)  “Malice” is defined 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).)  “Oppression” is defined as despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.  (Civil Code § 3294(c)(2).)  “Fraud” is defined 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)(3).) 

To establish, “willful and conscious disregard,” plaintiff must establish that defendant: (1) was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his or her conduct; and (2) willfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences.  (Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895-896.) “Malice may be proved either expressly through direct evidence or by implication through indirect evidence from which the jury draws inferences. [Citation.]” (Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1228.) 

“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. …. The wrongdoer  … must act with the intent to vex, injure, or annoy, or with a conscious disregard of the plaintiff's rights. … Punitive damages are appropriate if the defendant's acts are reprehensible, fraudulent or in blatant violation of law or policy. The mere carelessness or ignorance of the defendant does not justify the imposition of punitive damages . . . . Punitive damages are proper only when the tortious conduct rises to levels of extreme indifference to the plaintiff's rights, a level which decent citizens should not have to tolerate . . . .” (Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1210.)  “Consequently, to establish malice, ‘it is not sufficient to show only that the defendant's conduct was negligent, grossly negligent or even reckless.’ ” (Bell v. Sharp Cabrillo Hospital (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1044; Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1211 [“[R]ecklessness alone is insufficient to sustain an award of punitive damages….”].)

Here, the Cross-Complaint alleges that since Cross-Defendants moved in, they have treated Cross-Complainants with disdain, and have engaged in the following acts, among other acts:  Cross-Defendants continuously ran a loud fan in their garage for two years (Cross-Complaint, ¶ 17); Cross-Defendants installed three lights which has grown to be over twenty lights, that shined onto Cross-Complainants’ property (Cross-Complaint, ¶ 18); and Cross-Defendants reached over from their yard into Cross-Complainants’ yard or used a broom to remove or knock down wooden boards Cross-Complainants had put up (Cross-Complaint, ¶ 19). The Cross-Complaint also alleges that in February 2022, Cross-Defendants began to play loud music twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week (Cross-Complaint, ¶ 20).

The foregoing allegations and the allegations considered in context of the Cross-Complaint as a whole, assumed as true, are sufficient to plead despicable conduct which is carried on by the Cross-Defendants with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights of Cross-Complainants to support malice, and/or despicable conduct that subjects Cross-Complainants to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that their rights to support oppression. Accordingly, the motion to strike is DENIED.

Cross-Defendants are ordered to file an Answer within 20 days. 

The Case Management Conference is continued to 8/17/2023 at 1:30 p.m.

Cross-Complainants to give notice.