Judge: Sandy N. Leal, Case: 2022-01276982, Date: 2023-08-10 Tentative Ruling

1)   Case Management Conference

2)   Motion to Strike Portions Of Complaint

Defendants Frank Sorbello, Cherise Sorbello, Frank C. Sorbello, Trustee of the Frank Sorbello Family Trust dated September 20, 2006’s Motion to Strike portions of the Complaint is DENIED.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 436, the Court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 435 or at any time in its discretion, strike out “any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading” or strike “out 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 motion to strike is an appropriate mechanism for challenging the adequacy of punitive damages allegations. (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 164).

Pursuant to Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (a), “[i]n an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.” (Civ. Code §3294, subd. (a).)

Relevant herein, Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (c)(1) defines “malice” 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.” (Civ. Code, §3294, subd. (c)(1).) Similarly, “oppression” is defined as “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.” (Civ. Code, §3294, subd. (c)(2).)

Here, Plaintiff alleges that on or about 8-29-21 she was bit by Defendants’ pit bull while inside Defendants’ residence at 6781 Boscana Ct., Orange County, California.  (Complaint ¶¶ 1, 8, 14.)  Plaintiff sustained injuries to her head, face, and cheek regions.  (Complaint ¶ 15.)  Plaintiff asserts that Defendants knew the dog had previously bit at least two other people, including one other person in the head, face, and/or cheek regions, and concealed that information from Plaintiff.  (Complaint ¶ 13.)  Defendants allowed the dog to be in Plaintiff’s presence without wearing a muzzle or similar device intended to prevent it from biting people.  Defendants were aware that the dog had dangerous propensities to attack and bite humans.  (Id.)  Assuming these facts to be true, the Court finds these allegations to be sufficient to show malice. 

Accordingly, the motion to strike is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.